[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] qcow2: async handling of fragmented io

From: Max Reitz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] qcow2: async handling of fragmented io
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:40:37 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0

On 20.09.19 13:53, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 20.09.2019 14:10, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 16.09.19 19:53, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>> Here is an asynchronous scheme for handling fragmented qcow2
>>> reads and writes. Both qcow2 read and write functions loops through
>>> sequential portions of data. The series aim it to parallelize these
>>> loops iterations.
>>> It improves performance for fragmented qcow2 images, I've tested it
>>> as described below.
>> Thanks again, applied to my block branch:
>> https://git.xanclic.moe/XanClic/qemu/commits/branch/block
> Thanks a lot!
>>> v5: fix 026 and rebase on Max's block branch [perf results not updated]:
>>> 01: new, prepare 026 to not fail
>>> 03: - drop read_encrypted blkdbg event [Kevin]
>>>      - assert((x & (BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE - 1)) == 0) -> 
>>> assert(QEMU_IS_ALIGNED(x, BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE)) [rebase]
>>>      - full host offset in argument of qcow2_co_decrypt [rebase]
>>> 04: - substitute remaining qcow2_co_do_pwritev by qcow2_co_pwritev_task in 
>>> comment [Max]
>>>      - full host offset in argument of qcow2_co_encrypt [rebase]
>>> 05: - Now patch don't affect 026 iotest, so its output is not changed
>>> Rebase changes seems trivial, so, I've kept r-b marks.
>> (For the record, I didn’t consider them trivial, or I’d’ve applied
>> Maxim’s series on top of yours.  I consider a conflict to be trivially
>> resolvable only if there is only one way of doing it; but when I
>> resolved the conflicts myself, I resolved the one in patch 3 differently
>> from you – I added an offset_in_cluster variable to
>> qcow2_co_preadv_encrypted().  Sure, it’s still simple and the difference
>> is minor, but that was exactly where I thought that I can’t consider
>> this trivial.)
> Hmm. May be it's trivial enough to keep r-b (as my change is trivial itself), 
> but not
> trivial enough to change alien patch on queuing? If you disagree, I'll be more
> careful on keeping r-b in changed patches, sorry.

It doesn’t matter much to me, I diff all patches anyway. :-)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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