[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: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] qcow2: async handling of fragmented io
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:53:59 +0000

20.09.2019 15:40, Max Reitz wrote:
> 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. :-)

then a bit offtopic:

Which tools are you use?

I've some scripts to compare different versions of one serie (or to check, what
was changed in patches during some porting process..).. The core thing is to 
some not interesting numbers and hashes, which makes diffs dirty, and then call 
But maybe I've reinvented the wheel.

Best regards,

reply via email to

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