From: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
To: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>, qemu-block@nongnu.org
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/9] block: Add BDRV_REQ_WRITE_UNCHANGED flag
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:12:54 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae48f373-a9a5-fb67-3241-4812e13a4b08@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <377c9a6a-aa05-dec8-52fb-f0cdfc2c2b50@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1975 bytes --]
On 04/25/2018 10:08 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>
>> Also, that does raise the question of whether you have more work to
>> support write-zero requests with WRITE_UNCHANGED (which indeed sounds
>> like something plausible to support).
>
> I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question.
> BDRV_REQ_WRITE_UNCHANGED support is usually rather simple because as
> said above it is only needed by drivers that rely on their parent to
> request the permissions, i.e. filter drivers. Since filter drivers just
> forward the requests, all they have to do is retain the
> BDRV_REQ_WRITE_UNCHANGED flag, be it a zero write or a normal write.
I'm trying to figure out if BDRV_REQ_WRITE_UNCHANGED makes sense for
bdrv_co_pwrite_zeroes as well as bdrv_co_pwrite. I think the answer is
yes (if we know the guest already reads zeroes, but need to write to the
protocol layer anyways because of a commit operation, then mixing both
BDRV_REQ_WRITE_UNCHANGED and BDRV_REQ_ZERO_WRITE to the block layer
makes sense, and supported_zero_flags should indeed pass
BDRV_REQ_WRITE_UNCHANGED on to a driver.
>
> It would be more complicated for format drivers, because they would have
> to verify that the incoming unchanged write actually ends up as an
> unchanged write in their file. But we have already recognized that that
> would be too much to ask and that format drivers may want to generally
> just write anything to their child if it's writable (even regardless of
> whether the grandparent issues writes to the format driver node), so
> they always grab a WRITE permission on their file if possible.
> Therefore, they do not have to support this request flag.
So qcow2 doesn't have to support the flag, but file-posix.c might want
to. Or are you saying that only filter drivers need to advertise
support for the flag?
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 619 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-26 2:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-21 13:29 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/9] block: Add COR filter driver Max Reitz
2018-04-21 13:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/9] " Max Reitz
2018-04-24 15:08 ` Alberto Garcia
2018-04-25 11:18 ` Max Reitz
2018-04-25 11:35 ` Alberto Garcia
2018-04-21 13:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/9] block: BLK_PERM_WRITE includes ..._UNCHANGED Max Reitz
2018-04-21 13:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/9] block: Add BDRV_REQ_WRITE_UNCHANGED flag Max Reitz
2018-04-25 14:33 ` Eric Blake
2018-04-25 15:08 ` Max Reitz
2018-04-26 2:12 ` Eric Blake [this message]
2018-04-26 8:58 ` Kevin Wolf
2018-04-28 11:19 ` Max Reitz
2018-04-30 8:41 ` Kevin Wolf
2018-04-21 13:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/9] block: Set BDRV_REQ_WRITE_UNCHANGED for COR writes Max Reitz
2018-04-21 13:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] block/quorum: Support BDRV_REQ_WRITE_UNCHANGED Max Reitz
2018-04-21 13:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 6/9] block: Support BDRV_REQ_WRITE_UNCHANGED in filters Max Reitz
2018-04-21 13:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 7/9] iotests: Clean up wrap image in 197 Max Reitz
2018-04-21 13:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 8/9] iotests: Copy 197 for COR filter driver Max Reitz
2018-04-24 15:17 ` Alberto Garcia
2018-04-21 13:29 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 9/9] iotests: Add test for COR across nodes Max Reitz
2018-04-24 16:50 ` Kevin Wolf
2018-04-24 16:51 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/9] block: Add COR filter driver Kevin Wolf
2018-04-25 12:18 ` Max Reitz
2018-04-25 14:36 ` Eric Blake
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ae48f373-a9a5-fb67-3241-4812e13a4b08@redhat.com \
--to=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=berto@igalia.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).