[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v8 6/7] block-stream: freeze link to base node during stream
From: |
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v8 6/7] block-stream: freeze link to base node during stream job |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Sep 2020 15:17:08 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 |
07.09.2020 14:44, Max Reitz wrote:
On 04.09.20 15:48, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
04.09.2020 16:21, Max Reitz wrote:
On 28.08.20 18:52, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
To keep the base node unchanged during the block-stream operation,
freeze it as the other part of the backing chain with the intermediate
nodes related to the job.
This patch revers the change made with the commit c624b015bf as the
correct base file name and its format have to be written down to the
QCOW2 header on the disk when the backing file is being changed after
the stream job completes.
This reversion incurs changes in the tests 030, 245 and discards the
test 258 where concurrent stream/commit jobs are tested. When the link
to a base node is frozen, the concurrent job cannot change the common
backing chain.
Signed-off-by: Andrey Shinkevich <andrey.shinkevich@virtuozzo.com>
---
block/stream.c | 29 ++------
tests/qemu-iotests/030 | 10 +--
tests/qemu-iotests/245 | 2 +-
tests/qemu-iotests/258 | 161
---------------------------------------------
tests/qemu-iotests/258.out | 33 ----------
5 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 221 deletions(-)
delete mode 100755 tests/qemu-iotests/258
delete mode 100644 tests/qemu-iotests/258.out
Does this need to be in this series? (I’m not entirely sure, based on
what I can see in patch 7.)
When doing this, should we introduce a @bottom-node option alongside, so
that we can make all the tests that are deleted here pass still, just
with changes?
That's a question to discuss, and I asked Andrey to make this patch in this
simple way to see, how much damage we have with this change.
Honestly, I doubt that we need the new option. Previously, we decided that
we can make this change without a deprecation. If we still going to do it,
we shouldn't care about these use cases. So, if we freeze base again
wituhout
a depreaction and:
1. add bottom-node
- we keep the iotests
- If (unlikely) someone will came and say: hey, you've broken my
working scenario, we will say "use bottom-node option, sorry"
- Most likely we'll have unused option and corresponding unused logic,
making code more complex for nothing (and we'll have to say "sorry" anyway)
2. without option
- we loose the iotests. this looks scary, but it is honest: we drop
use-cases and corresponding iotests
- If (unlikely) someone will came and say: hey, you've broken my
working scenario, he will have to wait for next release / package
version / or update the downstream himself
- Most likely all will be OK.
Well, yes, we’ll disrupt either way, but it is a difference whether we
can tell people immediately that there’s an alternative now, or whether
we’ll have to make them wait for the next release.
Basically, the whole argument hinges on the question of whether anyone
uses this right now or not, and we just don’t know.
The question remains whether this patch is necessary for this series.
Otherwise iotests fail :)
We also have the option of introducing @bottom-node, leaving @base’s
behavior as-is
You mean not make it freeze base again, but just don't care?
and explaining it as a legacy option from which
@bottom-node is inferred. Then specifying @base just becomes weird and
problem-prone when the graph is reconfigured while the job is active,
but you can get around that by simply using the non-legacy option.
Hmm. Last time, I thought that bottom-node was a bad idea, as we have a lot of
problems with it, but you think it should be kept as preferred behavior? But
this sounds as working idea.
Then, we'll probably want to set skip_filters(bottom->backing) as backing of top
in qcow2 metadata, and direct bottom->backing as new backing of top in block node
graph.
Anyway, I like the idea to deprecate filename-based interfaces wherever we can.
PS: Sorry for my decreased attention to the list for last weeks, I have to
finish necessary work for Virtuozzo release.
Max
Hmm. OK, and the hard-way:
3. Enable all the new logic (filter insertion, freezing base, etc.) only
when filter-node-name option specified. And immediately deprecate
not-specifying the option.
[Note, that in way [3] we don't need bottom-node option]
--
Best regards,
Vladimir