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

[Max Reitz]

On 20.09.19 14:53, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 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 
> filter
> some not interesting numbers and hashes, which makes diffs dirty, and then 
> call vimdiff.
> But maybe I've reinvented the wheel.

Just kompare as a graphical diff tool; I just scroll past the hash diffs.

But now that you gave me the idea, maybe I should write a script to
filter them...  (So, no, I don’t know of a tool that would do that
already :-/)

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature