Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v6 25/42] mirror: Deal with filters

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

12.08.2019 16:26, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 12.08.19 13:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 09.08.2019 19:13, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> This includes some permission limiting (for example, we only need to
>>> take the RESIZE permission for active commits where the base is smaller
>>> than the top).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>    block/mirror.c | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>    blockdev.c     |  47 +++++++++++++++++---
>>>    2 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/mirror.c b/block/mirror.c
>>> index 54bafdf176..6ddbfb9708 100644
>>> --- a/block/mirror.c
>>> +++ b/block/mirror.c
>>
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>> @@ -1693,15 +1734,39 @@ static BlockJob *mirror_start_job(
>>>        /* In commit_active_start() all intermediate nodes disappear, so
>>>         * any jobs in them must be blocked */
>>>        if (target_is_backing) {
>>> -        BlockDriverState *iter;
>>> -        for (iter = backing_bs(bs); iter != target; iter = 
>>> backing_bs(iter)) {
>>> -            /* XXX BLK_PERM_WRITE needs to be allowed so we don't block
>>> -             * ourselves at s->base (if writes are blocked for a node, 
>>> they are
>>> -             * also blocked for its backing file). The other options would 
>>> be a
>>> -             * second filter driver above s->base (== target). */
>>> +        BlockDriverState *iter, *filtered_target;
>>> +        uint64_t iter_shared_perms;
>>> +
>>> +        /*
>>> +         * The topmost node with
>>> +         * bdrv_skip_rw_filters(filtered_target) == 
>>> bdrv_skip_rw_filters(target)
>>> +         */
>>> +        filtered_target = bdrv_filtered_cow_bs(bdrv_find_overlay(bs, 
>>> target));
>>> +
>>> +        assert(bdrv_skip_rw_filters(filtered_target) ==
>>> +               bdrv_skip_rw_filters(target));
>>> +
>>> +        /*
>>> +         * XXX BLK_PERM_WRITE needs to be allowed so we don't block
>>> +         * ourselves at s->base (if writes are blocked for a node, they are
>>> +         * also blocked for its backing file). The other options would be a
>>> +         * second filter driver above s->base (== target).
>>> +         */
>>> +        iter_shared_perms = BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED | BLK_PERM_WRITE;
>>> +
>>> +        for (iter = bdrv_filtered_bs(bs); iter != target;
>>> +             iter = bdrv_filtered_bs(iter))
>>> +        {
>>> +            if (iter == filtered_target) {
>>> +                /*
>>> +                 * From here on, all nodes are filters on the base.
>>> +                 * This allows us to share BLK_PERM_CONSISTENT_READ.
>>> +                 */
>>> +                iter_shared_perms |= BLK_PERM_CONSISTENT_READ;
>>
>>
>> Hmm, I don't understand, why read from upper nodes is not shared?
> 
> Because they don’t represent a consistent disk state during the commit.
> 
> Please don’t ask me details about CONSISTENT_READ, because I always
> pretend I understand it, but I never really do, actually.
> 
> (My problem is that I do understand why the intermediate nodes shouldn’t
> share CONSISTENT_READ: It’s because they only read garbage, effectively.
>   But I don’t understand how any block job target (like our base here)
> can have CONSISTENT_READ.

I know such example: it's image fleecing scheme, when for backup job source
is a backing for target. If serialization of requests works well target 
represents
consistent state of disk ate backup-start point in time.

But yes, it's not about mirror or commit.

>  Block job targets are mostly written front to
> back (except with sync=none), so they too don’t “[represent] the
> contents of a disk at a specific point.”
> But that is how it was, so that is how it should be kept.)
> 
> If it makes you any happier, BLK_PERM_CONSISTENT_READ’s description
> explicitly notes that it will not be shared on intermediate nodes of a
> commit job.
> 
> Max
> 
>>> +            }
>>> +
>>>                ret = block_job_add_bdrv(&s->common, "intermediate node", 
>>> iter, 0,
>>> -                                     BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED | 
>>> BLK_PERM_WRITE,
>>> -                                     errp);
>>> +                                     iter_shared_perms, errp);
>>>                if (ret < 0) {
>>>                    goto fail;
>>>                }
>>
>> [..]
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir