Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block: posix: Always allocate the first block

[John Snow]

On 8/16/19 6:45 PM, Nir Soffer wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:57 AM John Snow <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> 
>     On 8/16/19 5:21 PM, Nir Soffer wrote:
>     > When creating an image with preallocation "off" or "falloc", the first
>     > block of the image is typically not allocated. When using Gluster
>     > storage backed by XFS filesystem, reading this block using direct I/O
>     > succeeds regardless of request length, fooling alignment detection.
>     >
>     > In this case we fallback to a safe value (4096) instead of the optimal
>     > value (512), which may lead to unneeded data copying when aligning
>     > requests.  Allocating the first block avoids the fallback.
>     >
> 
>     Where does this detection/fallback happen? (Can it be improved?)
> 
> 
> In raw_probe_alignment().
> 
> This patch explain the issues:
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2019-08/msg00568.html
> 
> Here Kevin and me discussed ways to improve it:
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2019-08/msg00426.html
> 

Thanks for the reading!
That does help explain this patch better.

>     > When using preallocation=off, we always allocate at least one
>     filesystem
>     > block:
>     >
>     >     $ ./qemu-img create -f raw test.raw 1g
>     >     Formatting 'test.raw', fmt=raw size=1073741824
>     >
>     >     $ ls -lhs test.raw
>     >     4.0K -rw-r--r--. 1 nsoffer nsoffer 1.0G Aug 16 23:48 test.raw
>     >
>     > I did quick performance tests for these flows:
>     > - Provisioning a VM with a new raw image.
>     > - Copying disks with qemu-img convert to new raw target image
>     >
>     > I installed Fedora 29 server on raw sparse image, measuring the time
>     > from clicking "Begin installation" until the "Reboot" button appears:
>     >
>     > Before(s)  After(s)     Diff(%)
>     > -------------------------------
>     >      356        389        +8.4
>     >
>     > I ran this only once, so we cannot tell much from these results.
>     >
> 
>     That seems like a pretty big difference for just having pre-allocated a
>     single block. What was the actual command line / block graph for
>     that test?
> 
> 
> Having the first block allocated changes the alignment.
> 
> Before this patch, we detect request_alignment=1, so we fallback to 4096.
> Then we detect buf_align=1, so we fallback to value of request alignment.
> 
> The guest see a disk with:
> logical_block_size = 512
> physical_block_size = 512
> 
> But qemu uses:
> request_alignment = 4096
> buf_align = 4096
> 
> storage uses:
> logical_block_size = 512
> physical_block_size = 512
> 
> If the guest does direct I/O using 512 bytes aligment, qemu has to copy
> the buffer to align them to 4096 bytes.
> 
> After this patch, qemu detects the alignment correctly, so we have:
> 
> guest
> logical_block_size = 512
> physical_block_size = 512
> 
> qemu
> request_alignment = 512
> buf_align = 512
> 
> storage:
> logical_block_size = 512
> physical_block_size = 512
> 
> We expect this to be more efficient because qemu does not have to emulate
> anything.
> 
>     Was this over a network that could explain the variance?
> 
> 
> Maybe, this is complete install of Fedora 29 server, I'm not sure if the
> installation 
> access the network.
> 
>     > The second test was cloning the installation image with qemu-img
>     > convert, doing 10 runs:
>     >
>     >     for i in $(seq 10); do
>     >         rm -f dst.raw
>     >         sleep 10
>     >         time ./qemu-img convert -f raw -O raw -t none -T none
>     src.raw dst.raw
>     >     done
>     >
>     > Here is a table comparing the total time spent:
>     >
>     > Type    Before(s)   After(s)    Diff(%)
>     > ---------------------------------------
>     > real      530.028    469.123      -11.4
>     > user       17.204     10.768      -37.4
>     > sys        17.881      7.011      -60.7
>     >
>     > Here we see very clear improvement in CPU usage.
>     >
> 
>     Hard to argue much with that. I feel a little strange trying to force
>     the allocation of the first block, but I suppose in practice "almost no
>     preallocation" is indistinguishable from "exactly no preallocation" if
>     you squint.
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> The real issue is that filesystems and block devices do not expose the
> alignment
> requirement for direct I/O, so we need to use these hacks and assumptions.
> 
> With local XFS we use xfsctl(XFS_IOC_DIOINFO) to get request_alignment,
> but this does
> not help for XFS filesystem used by Gluster on the server side.
> 
> I hope that Niels is working on adding similar ioctl for Glsuter, os it
> can expose the properties
> of the remote filesystem.
> 
> Nir

That sounds quite a bit less hacky, but I agree we still have to do what
we can in the meantime.

(It looks like you've been hashing this out with Kevin for a while, so
I'm going to sheepishly defer to his judgment on this patch. While I
think it's probably a fine trade-off, I can't really say off-hand if
there's a better, more targeted way to accomplish it.)

--js