Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/7] block: fix maximum length sent to bdrv_co_do_write_zeroes callback in bs

["Denis V. Lunev" <den-lists@parallels.com>]

On 26/12/14 16:13, Peter Lieven wrote:
> Am 26.12.2014 um 13:35 schrieb Denis V. Lunev:
>> The check for maximum length was added by
>>    commit c31cb70728d2c0c8900b35a66784baa446fd5147
>>    Author: Peter Lieven <pl@kamp.de>
>>    Date:   Thu Oct 24 12:06:58 2013 +0200
>>      block: honour BlockLimits in bdrv_co_do_write_zeroes
>>
>> but actually if driver provides .bdrv_co_write_zeroes callback, there is
>> no need to limit the size to 32 MB. Callback should provide effective
>> implementation which normally should not write any zeroes in comparable
>> amount.
>
> NACK.
>
> First there is no guarantee that bdrv_co_do_write_zeroes is a fast operation.
> This heaviliy depends on several circumstances that the block layer is not aware of.
> If a specific protocol knows it is very fast in writing zeroes under any circumstance
> it should provide INT_MAX in bs->bl.max_write_zeroes. It is then still allowed to
> return -ENOTSUP if the request size or alignment doesn't fit.

the idea is that (from my point of view) if .bdrv_co_do_write_zeroes is
specified, the cost is almost the same for any amount of zeroes
written. This is true for fallocate from my point of view. The amount
of actually written data will be in several orders less than specified
except slow path, which honors 32 MB limit.

If the operation is complex in realization, then it will be rate-limited
below, in actual implementation.

> There are known backends e.g. anything that deals with SCSI that have a known
> limitation of the maximum number of zeroes they can write fast in a single request.
> This number MUST NOT be exceeded. The below patch would break all those backends.

could you pls point me this backends. Actually, from my point of
view, they should properly setup max_write_zeroes for themselves.
This is done at least in block/iscsi.c and it would be consistent
way of doing so.

>
> What issue are you trying to fix with this patch? Maybe there is a better way to fix
> it at another point in the code.
>

I am trying to minimize amount of metadata updates for a file.
This provides some speedup even on ext4 and this will provide
even more speedup with a distributed filesystem like CEPH
where size updates of the files and block allocation are
costly.

Regards,
	Den