[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] util/hbitmap: fix unaligned reset

From: Max Reitz
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] util/hbitmap: fix unaligned reset
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 23:19:40 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0

On 02.08.19 20:58, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> hbitmap_reset is broken: it rounds up the requested region. It leads to
> the following bug, which is shown by fixed test:
> assume granularity = 2
> set(0, 3) # count becomes 4
> reset(0, 1) # count becomes 2
> But user of the interface assume that virtual bit 1 should be still
> dirty, so hbitmap should report count to be 4!
> In other words, because of granularity, when we set one "virtual" bit,
> yes, we make all "virtual" bits in same chunk to be dirty. But this
> should not be so for reset.
> Fix this, aligning bound correctly.
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <address@hidden>
> ---
> Hi all!
> Hmm, is it a bug or feature? :)
> I don't have a test for mirror yet, but I think that sync mirror may be broken
> because of this, as do_sync_target_write() seems to be using unaligned reset.


Yes, you’re right.  This would fix it, and it wouldn’t fix it in the
worst way.

But I don’t know whether this patch is the best way forward still.  I
think call hbitmap_reset() with unaligned boundaries generally calls for
trouble, as John has laid out.  If mirror’s do_sync_target_write() is
the only offender right now, I’d prefer for hbitmap_reset() to assert
that the boundaries are aligned (for 4.2), and for
do_sync_target_write() to be fixed (for 4.1? :-/).

(A practical problem with this patch is that do_sync_target_write() will
still do the write, but it won’t change anything in the bitmap, so the
copy operation was effectively useless.)

I don’t know how to fix mirror exactly, though.  I have four ideas:

(A) Quick fix 1: do_sync_target_write() should shrink [offset, offset +
bytes) such that it is aligned.  This would make it skip writes that
don’t fill one whole chunk.

+: Simple fix.  Could go into 4.1.
-: Makes copy-mode=write-blocking equal to copy-mode=background unless
   you set the granularity to like 512. (Still beats just being
   completely broken.)

(B) Quick fix 2: Setting the request_alignment block limit to the job’s
granularity when in write-blocking mode.

+: Very simple fix.  Could go into 4.1.
+: Every write will trigger a RMW cycle, which copies the whole chunk to
   the target, so write-blocking will do what it’s supposed to do.
-: request_alignment forces everything to have the same granularity, so
   this slows down reads needlessly.  (But only for write-blocking.)

(C) Maybe the right fix 1: Let do_sync_target_write() expand [offset,
offset + bytes) such that it is aligned and read head and tail from the
source node.  (So it would do the RMW itself.)

+ Doesn’t slow reads down.
+ Writes to dirty areas will make them clean – which is what
  write-blocking is for.
- Probably more complicated.  Nothing for 4.1.

(D) Maybe the right fix 2: Split BlockLimits.request_alignment into
read_alignment and write_alignment.  Then do (B).

In effect, this is more or less the same as (C), but probably in a
simpler way.  Still not simple enough for 4.1, though.

So...  I tend to do either (A) or (B) now, and then probably (D) for
4.2?  (And because (D) is an extension to (B), it would make sense to do
(B) now, unless you’d prefer (A).)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]