Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] virtio-blk: introduce multiread

[Peter Lieven]

Am 30.01.2015 um 22:15 schrieb Kevin Wolf:
> Am 30.01.2015 um 22:05 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben:
>> Am 30.01.2015 um 18:16 schrieb Max Reitz:
>>> On 2015-01-30 at 09:33, Peter Lieven wrote:
>>>> this patch finally introduces multiread support to virtio-blk. While
>>>> multiwrite support was there for a long time, read support was missing.
>>>>
>>>> The complete merge logic is moved into virtio-blk.c which has
>>>> been the only user of request merging ever since. This is required
>>>> to be able to merge chunks of requests and immediately invoke callbacks
>>>> for those requests. Secondly, this is required to switch to
>>>> direct invocation of coroutines which is planned at a later stage.
>>>>
>>>> The following benchmarks show the performance of running fio with
>>>> 4 worker threads on a local ram disk. The numbers show the average
>>>> of 10 test runs after 1 run as warmup phase.
>>>>
>>>>                |        4k        |       64k        |        4k
>>>> MB/s          | rd seq | rd rand | rd seq | rd rand | wr seq | wr rand
>>>> --------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+--------+--------
>>>> master        | 1221   | 1187    | 4178   | 4114    | 1745   | 1213
>>>> multiread     | 1829   | 1189    | 4639   | 4110    | 1894   | 1216
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>>   hw/block/dataplane/virtio-blk.c |   8 +-
>>>>   hw/block/virtio-blk.c           | 288 
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>>   include/hw/virtio/virtio-blk.h  |  19 +--
>>>>   trace-events                    |   1 +
>>>>   4 files changed, 210 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
>>>> +    int64_t sector_num = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (mrb->num_reqs == 1) {
>>>> +        virtio_submit_multireq2(blk, mrb, 0, 1, -1);
>>>> +        mrb->num_reqs = 0;
>>>>           return;
>>>>       }
>>>>   -    ret = blk_aio_multiwrite(blk, mrb->blkreq, mrb->num_writes);
>>>> -    if (ret != 0) {
>>>> -        for (i = 0; i < mrb->num_writes; i++) {
>>>> -            if (mrb->blkreq[i].error) {
>>>> -                virtio_blk_rw_complete(mrb->blkreq[i].opaque, -EIO);
>>>> +    max_xfer_len = blk_get_max_transfer_length(mrb->reqs[0]->dev->blk);
>>>> +    max_xfer_len = MIN_NON_ZERO(max_xfer_len, INT_MAX);
>>>> +
>>>> +    qsort(mrb->reqs, mrb->num_reqs, sizeof(*mrb->reqs),
>>>> +          &virtio_multireq_compare);
>>>> +
>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < mrb->num_reqs; i++) {
>>>> +        VirtIOBlockReq *req = mrb->reqs[i];
>>>> +        if (num_reqs > 0) {
>>>> +            bool merge = true;
>>>> +
>>>> +            /* merge would exceed maximum number of IOVs */
>>>> +            if (niov + req->qiov.niov + 1 > IOV_MAX) {
>>> Hm, why the +1?
>> A really good question. I copied this piece from the old merge routine. It 
>> seems
>> definetely wrong.
> The old code merged requests even if they were overlapping. This could
> result in one area being split in two.
>
> I think you don't support this here, so removing the + 1 is probably
> okay.

I don't support it because it was a good source for bugs in the past and I think
a good guest should not create overlapping requests at all.

Peter