From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57101) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z8Tnn-0001Zq-5r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:36:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z8Tnl-0004wF-Tw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:36:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:36:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Alexandre DERUMIER Message-ID: <903405424.2645000.1435325770714.JavaMail.zimbra@oxygem.tv> In-Reply-To: <20150625104538.GC12846@ad.nay.redhat.com> References: <1433742974-20128-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <20150608130242.GE1961@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <20150611082911.GB22459@ad.nay.redhat.com> <20150624090831.GC22582@ad.nay.redhat.com> <558AE25D.4010508@redhat.com> <20150625010219.GC17695@ad.nay.redhat.com> <20150625104538.GC12846@ad.nay.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng Cc: Kevin Wolf , qemu-block@nongnu.org, Jeff Cody , qemu-devel , qemu-stable , stefanha , pbonzini , jsnow@redhat.com, wangxiaolong@ucloud.cn Hi, >>There is no problem, the observasion by Andrey was just that qmp command = takes=20 >>a few minutes before returning, because he didn't apply=20 >> >>https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-05/msg02511.html=20 Is this patch already apply on the block tree ? With nfs as source storage, it's really slow currently (lseek slow + a lot = of nfs ops). ----- Mail original ----- De: "Fam Zheng" =C3=80: "pbonzini" Cc: "Kevin Wolf" , qemu-block@nongnu.org, "Jeff Cody" , "qemu-devel" , "qemu-stable" , "stefanha" , jsnow@redhat.com, wan= gxiaolong@ucloud.cn Envoy=C3=A9: Jeudi 25 Juin 2015 12:45:38 Objet: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarde= d sectors On Thu, 06/25 09:02, Fam Zheng wrote:=20 > On Wed, 06/24 19:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > On 24/06/2015 11:08, Fam Zheng wrote:=20 > > >> Stefan,=20 > > >>=20 > > >> The only controversial patches are the qmp/drive-mirror ones (1-3), = while=20 > > >> patches 4-8 are still useful on their own: they fix the mentioned cr= ash and=20 > > >> improve iotests.=20 > > >>=20 > > >> Shall we merge the second half (of course none of them depend on 1-3= ) now that=20 > > >> softfreeze is approaching?=20 > > >=20 > > > Stefan, would you consider applying patches 4-8?=20 > >=20 > > Actually why not apply all of them? Even if blockdev-mirror is a=20 > > superior interface in the long run, the current behavior of drive-mirro= r=20 > > can cause images to balloon up to the full size, which is bad.=20 > > Extending drive-mirror is okay IMHO for 2.4.=20 > >=20 >=20 > Before we do that, Andrey Korolyov has reported a hang issue with unmap= =3Dtrue,=20 > I'll take a look at it today.=20 There is no problem, the observasion by Andrey was just that qmp command ta= kes=20 a few minutes before returning, because he didn't apply=20 https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-05/msg02511.html=20 Fam=20