[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] NBD proto: add GET_LBA_STATUS extension

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] NBD proto: add GET_LBA_STATUS extension
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:27:00 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0

On 03/23/2016 08:16 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> From: Pavel Borzenkov <address@hidden>
> With the availability of sparse storage formats, it is often needed to
> query status of a particular LBA range and read only those blocks of
> data that are actually present on the block device.

The acronym LBA is not used elsewhere in the NBD spec; should we spell
it out at least once?

> To provide such information, the patch adds GET_LBA_STATUS extension
> with one new NBD_CMD_GET_LBA_STATUS command.
> There exists a concept of data dirtiness, which is required during, for
> example, incremental block device backup. To express this concept via
> NBD protocol, this patch also adds additional mode of operation to
> Since NBD protocol has no notion of block size, and to mimic SCSI "GET
> LBA STATUS" command more closely, it has been chosen to return a list of
> extents in the response of NBD_CMD_GET_LBA_STATUS command, instead of a
> bitmap.
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Borzenkov <address@hidden>
> Reviewed-by: Roman Kagan <address@hidden>
> Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <address@hidden>
> CC: Wouter Verhelst <address@hidden>
> CC: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
> CC: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
> CC: Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden>
> ---
>  doc/proto.md | 82 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 82 insertions(+)

> +### `GET_LBA_STATUS` extension
> +
> +With the availability of sparse storage formats, it is often needed to query
> +status of a particular LBA range and read only those blocks of data that are
> +actually present on the block device.
> +
> +Some storage formats and operations over such formats express a concept of
> +data dirtiness. Whether the operation is block device mirroring,
> +incremental block device backup or any other operation with a concept of
> +data dirtiness, they all share a need to provide a list of LBA ranges
> +that this particular operation treats as dirty.
> +
> +To provide such class of information, `GET_LBA_STATUS` extension adds new
> +`NBD_CMD_GET_LBA_STATUS` command which returns a list of LBA ranges with
> +their respective states.
> +
> +
> +    An LBA range status query request. Length and offset define the range
> +    of interest. The server MUST reply with a reply header, followed
> +    immediately by the following data:
> +
> +      - 32 bits, length of parameter data that follow (unsigned)

Is this length the number of descriptors, or the number of bytes
occupied by those descriptors?  It looks like bytes (that is, with the
current layout, this field should be a multiple of 14 unless an error is
returned and the data is bogus).

I guess 32 bits is sufficient: transmission commands are limited to
32-bit length, and we are unlikely to have more than one extent per 512
bytes of length, so even if we have a header for every single sector
(worst-case for alternating clean/dirty sectors), as long as the
smallest granularity of an extent is larger than the extent field, the
'length of parameter data' in bytes is still sufficient.

> +      - zero or more LBA status descriptors, each having the following

zero or more? [1]

> +        structure:
> +
> +        * 64 bits, offset (unsigned)
> +        * 32 bits, length (unsigned)
> +        * 16 bits, status (unsigned)

An array of these status descriptors is packed on the wire, while the
typical C layout of an array of these structures will have padding to
reach a nice 8-byte alignment.  Should 'status' be a 32-bit field, so
that clients and servers do not have to pack/unpack between 14 bytes on
the wire and 16 bytes in efficient array handling, at the expense of
more network traffic?

Conversely, it would be possible to send less data over the wire, as
long as we require that all LBA status descriptors cover consecutive
offsets.  That is, having the server reply with offsets is pointless,
since they can be reconstructed on the client by starting with the
offset in the client's request, then adding length from each status
field.  Is less network traffic desirable?

> +
> +    unless an error condition has occurred.
> +
> +    If an error occurs, the server SHOULD set the appropriate error code
> +    in the error field. The server MUST then either close the
> +    connection, or send *length of parameter data* bytes of data
> +    (which MAY be invalid).
> +
> +    The type of information required by the client is passed to server in the
> +    command flags field. If the server does not implement requested type or
> +    have no means to express it, it MUST NOT return an error, but instead 
> +    return a single LBA status descriptor with *offset* and *length* equal to
> +    the *offset* and *length* from request, and *status* set to `0`.

[1] So in what situations will we ever return an array of zero status
fields? On an error?  Should we make it clear that the server MUST NOT
return 0 status fields except on an error?

Do we want to require that the server MUST reply with enough extents to
sum up to the length of the client's request, or are we permitting a
short reply?

> +
> +    The following request types are currently defined for the command:
> +
> +    1. Block provisioning state
> +
> +    Upon receiving an `NBD_CMD_GET_LBA_STATUS` command with command flags
> +    field set to `NBD_FLAG_GET_ALLOCATED` (0x0), the server MUST return

Here, you spell it '0x0'; in the previous patch, you spelled the command
flag as 'bit 1' - does that mean that Block provisioning state is the
default when no command flags are sent?  What if we later add other
flags but still want block provisioning mode?  Wouldn't it be better to
state that this mode is entered when the NBD_FLAG_GET_DIRTY flag is
clear, without regards to the state of the other flags, than allowing
this mode only when all 16 flags are zero?

For example, should we allow a flag that states that the client is
interested only in allocated/unallocated, and that the server may
coalesce NBD_STATE_ZEROED extents as if they were NBD_STATE_ALLOCATED
for fewer extents reported and thus potentially less network traffic?

> +    the provisioning state of the device. The following provisionnig states


> +    are defined for the command:
> +
> +      - `NBD_STATE_ALLOCATED` (0x0), LBA extent is present on the block 
> device;
> +      - `NBD_STATE_ZEROED` (0x1), LBA extent is present on the block device
> +        and contains zeroes;
> +      - `NBD_STATE_DEALLOCATED` (0x2), LBA extent is not present on the
> +        block device. A client MUST NOT make any assumptions about the
> +        contents of the extent.

same time, or is that an error on the server?  What do we know about an
extent that has neither NBD_STATE_ALLOCATED nor NBD_STATE_DEALLOCATED set?

/me re-reads

Oh, you are using this as the _entire_ 16-bit status value, rather than
as bits 0, 1, and 2 as flags.

But I think you have two binary flags (four possible states) here: it is
quite conceivable to have a server on top of a SCSI device, where we
know that the extent is unallocated in SCSI, but where the server will
guarantee that it reads as all zeroes (possibly because the server
bypasses SCSI on the NBD read commands when it knows SCSI is
unallocated).  That is, if we set this up as two flags:

0x1 - allocated
0x2 - reads as 0

then we can express four states:

0x0 - LBA extent not present, client MUST NOT make assumptions about
contents, and reads should not be attempted
0x1 - LBA extent allocated, reads will succeed but no guarantee on contents
0x2 - LBA extent not present, but client can treat the extent as zeroes
and reads will succeed
0x3 - LBA extent present, client can treat the extent as zeroes and
reads will succeed

Actually, we should probably pick the bit values such that 0x0 means
allocated and readable, as the most common state, since we also require
that the command returns a single extent over the entire length with
status 0 if the server can't provide any further details.

I'm not familiar enough with the SCSI "GET LBA STATUS" command to know
if your command sanely matches to that one.

> +
> +    2. Block dirtiness state
> +
> +    Upon receiving an `NBD_CMD_GET_LBA_STATUS` command with command flags
> +    field set to `NBD_FLAG_GET_DIRTY` (0x1), the server MUST return

This overlaps with the bit value for NBD_FLAG_SEND_FUA in the previous
patch.  Is that okay?  Or should we use a different bit value, on the
grounds that some future extension may want to use both flags
orthogonally within the same (possibly new) command?  Again, consistency
in the spelling ('bit 1' in the previous patch, '0x1' here), would be nice.

> +    the dirtiness status of the device. The following dirtiness states
> +    are defined for the command:
> +
> +      - `NBD_STATE_DIRTY` (0x0), LBA extent is dirty;
> +      - `NBD_STATE_CLEAN` (0x1), LBA extent is clean.

Again, it looks like you are using these as two entire 16-bit status
values, rather than as two separate bits (1<<0 and 1<<1).  Another way
of expressing it is that a single boolean flag is defined, if clear, the
extent is dirty, if set, the extent is clean.

> +
> +    Generic NBD client implementation without knowledge of a particular NBD
> +    server operation MUST NOT make any assumption on the meaning of the
> +
> +The server SHOULD return `EINVAL` if it receives a `GET_LBA_STATUS` request
> +including one or more sectors beyond the size of the device.

As mentioned in the previous mail, should we also recommend an EINVAL if
NBD_CMD_GET_LBA_STATUS was not negotiated in the export options but the
client sends the command anyways; and/or a requirement that the client
must not issue the command in that case?

> +
>  ## About this file
>  This file tries to document the NBD protocol as it is currently

Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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