[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH 4/8] block/backup: improve unallocated clusters
From: |
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH 4/8] block/backup: improve unallocated clusters skipping |
Date: |
Fri, 9 Aug 2019 12:47:00 +0000 |
09.08.2019 15:25, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 09.08.19 09:50, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 07.08.2019 21:01, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 07.08.19 10:07, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>>> Limit block_status querying to request bounds on write notifier to
>>>> avoid extra seeking.
>>>
>>> I don’t understand this reasoning. Checking whether something is
>>> allocated for qcow2 should just mean an L2 cache lookup. Which we have
>>> to do anyway when we try to copy data off the source.
>>
>> But for raw it's seeking.
>
> (1) That’s a bug in block_status then, isn’t it?
>
> file-posix cannot determine the allocation status, or rather, everything
> is allocated. bdrv_co_block_status() should probably pass @want_zero on
> to the driver’s implementation, and file-posix should just
> unconditionally return DATA if it’s false.
>
> (2) Why would you even use sync=top for raw nodes?
>
As I described in parallel letters, raw was bad example. NBD is good.
Anyway, now I'm refactoring cluster skipping more deeply for v2.
About top-mode: finally block-status should be used to improve other
modes too. In virtuozzo we skip unallocated for full mode too, for example.
Unfortunately, backup is most long-term thing to upstream for me..
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
- [Qemu-block] [PATCH 7/8] block/backup: merge duplicated logic into backup_do_cow, (continued)