From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12B57C71136 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:43:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uR6MK-0004d6-N6; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 05:42:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uR6Lt-0004UG-3T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 05:42:06 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uR6Lq-0000ur-Ri for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 05:42:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1750066920; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=vsOzfNKdptip7SguQkGsP8Gq7dvacVjw8gUO9YHGEr4=; b=K97QZ6H9ErZvyCzSCZWuYhtWD01vbblQSLXHa83NT2Zgnqt15OMxus94e1BPPbKhBDL6Hz XXhb7QHNrbefiGo+iCr9ShQqGPLTknvIqQVDGSKjwSkrLOvvHJWWwvQdfTlR756lEBnMZH pDpd+5cZJCIVV6nxElEx/hM38cI3TGA= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-544-h9WKuBSXObOdMWPcJHAaJQ-1; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 05:41:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: h9WKuBSXObOdMWPcJHAaJQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: h9WKuBSXObOdMWPcJHAaJQ_1750066917 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B426319560B5; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.53]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D510180035C; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:41:49 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Fiona Ebner Cc: qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com, eblake@redhat.com, hreitz@redhat.com, kwolf@redhat.com, pl@dlhnet.de, idryomov@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] block/rbd: support selected key-value-pairs via QAPI Message-ID: References: <20250515112908.383693-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20250515112908.383693-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250515112908.383693-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.14 (2025-02-20) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 01:29:07PM +0200, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Currently, most Ceph configuration options are not exposed via QAPI. > While it is possible to specify a dedicated Ceph configuration file, > specialized options are often only required for a selection of images > on the RBD storage, not all of them. To avoid the need to generate a > dedicated Ceph configuration file for each image (or for each required > combination of options), support a selection of key-value pairs via > QAPI. > > Initially, this is just 'rbd_cache_policy'. For example, this is > useful with small images used as a pflash for EFI variables. Setting > the 'rbd_cache_policy' to 'writeback' yields a substantial improvement > there [0]. > > The function qemu_rbd_extract_key_value_pairs() was copied/adapted > from the existing qemu_rbd_extract_encryption_create_options(). > > [0]: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3329#c9 > > Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner > --- > block/rbd.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > qapi/block-core.json | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 110 insertions(+) > diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json > index 91c70e24a7..4666765e66 100644 > --- a/qapi/block-core.json > +++ b/qapi/block-core.json > @@ -4301,6 +4301,39 @@ > 'data': { 'luks': 'RbdEncryptionCreateOptionsLUKS', > 'luks2': 'RbdEncryptionCreateOptionsLUKS2' } } > > +## > +# @RbdCachePolicy: > +# > +# An enumeration of values for the 'rbd_cache_policy' Ceph > +# configuration setting. See the Ceph documentation for details. > +# > +# @writearound: cachable writes return immediately, reads are not > +# served from the cache. > +# > +# @writeback: cachable writes return immediately, reads are served > +# from the cache. > +# > +# @writethrough: writes return only when the data is on disk for all > +# replicas, reads are served from the cache. > +# > +# Since 10.1 > +## > +{ 'enum' : 'RbdCachePolicy', > + 'data' : [ 'writearound', 'writeback', 'writethrough' ] } > + > + > +## > +# @RbdKeyValuePairs: > +# > +# Key-value pairs for Ceph configuration. > +# > +# @rbd-cache-policy: Ceph configuration option 'rbd_cache_policy'. > +# > +# Since 10.1 > +## > +{ 'struct': 'RbdKeyValuePairs', > + 'data': { '*rbd-cache-policy': 'RbdCachePolicy' } } > + > ## > # @BlockdevOptionsRbd: > # > @@ -4327,6 +4360,9 @@ > # authentication. This maps to Ceph configuration option "key". > # (Since 3.0) > # > +# @key-value-pairs: Key-value pairs for additional Ceph configuraton. > +# (Since 10.1) > +# > # @server: Monitor host address and port. This maps to the "mon_host" > # Ceph option. > # > @@ -4342,6 +4378,7 @@ > '*user': 'str', > '*auth-client-required': ['RbdAuthMode'], > '*key-secret': 'str', > + '*key-value-pairs' : 'RbdKeyValuePairs', I'm not seeing any point in this 'RbdKeyValuePairs' struct. Why isn't the 'rbd-cache-policy' field just directly part of the BlockdevOptionsRbd struct like all the other options are ? Also, 'rbd-' as a prefix in the field name is redundant when this is already in an RBD specific struct. > '*server': ['InetSocketAddressBase'] } } > With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|