[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation
From: |
Kevin Wolf |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:29:22 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Am 11.04.2017 um 17:18 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 11.04.2017 17:08, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 04/11/2017 09:59 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Good point, but that also means that (with (2)) you can only use
> >> subcluster configurations where the L2 entry size increases by a power
> >> of two. Unfortunately, only one of those configurations itself is a
> >> power of two, and that is 32.
> >>
> >> (With 32 subclusters, you take up 64 bits, which means an L2 entry will
> >> take 128 bits; with any higher 2^n, you'd take up 2^{n+1} bits and the
> >> L2 entry would take 2^{n+1} + 64 which is impossible to be a power of two.)
> >
> > Or we add padding. If you want 64 subclusters, you burn 256 bits per>
> > entry, even though only 192 of those bits are used.
>
> Hm, yeah, although you have to keep in mind that the padding is almost
> pretty much the same as the the data bits we need, effectively doubling
> the size of the L2 tables:
>
> padding = 2^{n+2} - 2^{n+1} - 64 (=2^6)
> = 2^{n+1} - 64
>
> So that's not so nice, but if it's the only thing we can do...
>
> >> I don't know how useful non-power-of-two subcluster configurations are.
> >> Probably not at all.
> >>
> >> Since using subcluster would always result in the L2 table taking more
> >> than 512 bytes, you could therefore never guarantee that there is no
> >> entry overlapping a sector border (except with 32 subclusters).
> >
> > Yes, there's definite benefits to keeping whatever structure we end up
> > with aligned so that it naturally falls into sector boundaries, even if
> > it means more padding bits.
>
> Then again, I'm not even sure we really need atomicity for L2 entries +
> subcluster bits. I don't think you'd ever have to modify both at the
> same time (if you just say the subclusters are all unallocated when
> allocating the cluster itself, and then you write which subclusters are
> actually allocated afterwards)).
>
> (This also applies to your remark on caching, I think.)
>
> Atomicity certainly makes things easier, though.
Unless you want to deal with ordering (i.e. on cluster allocation, first
update the subcluster bitmap, then flush, then add the L2 entry), I
think you need atomicity.
Kevin
pgp03LBdGl5wA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Alberto Garcia, 2017/04/12
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Max Reitz, 2017/04/12
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Alberto Garcia, 2017/04/13
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Kevin Wolf, 2017/04/13
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Alberto Garcia, 2017/04/13
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Kevin Wolf, 2017/04/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Eric Blake, 2017/04/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Max Reitz, 2017/04/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Eric Blake, 2017/04/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Max Reitz, 2017/04/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation,
Kevin Wolf <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Max Reitz, 2017/04/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Eric Blake, 2017/04/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Max Reitz, 2017/04/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Alberto Garcia, 2017/04/12
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Proposed qcow2 extension: subcluster allocation, Denis V. Lunev, 2017/04/12