From: tianqing <tianqing@unitedstack.com>
Rbd can do readv and writev directly, so wo do not need to transform
iov to buf or vice versa any more.
Signed-off-by: tianqing <tianqing@unitedstack.com>
---
block/rbd.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/rbd.c b/block/rbd.c
index a57b3e3..22e8e69 100644
--- a/block/rbd.c
+++ b/block/rbd.c
@@ -62,6 +62,13 @@
#define RBD_MAX_SNAP_NAME_SIZE 128
#define RBD_MAX_SNAPS 100
+/* The LIBRBD_SUPPORTS_IOVEC is defined in librbd.h */
+#ifdef LIBRBD_SUPPORTS_IOVEC
+#define LIBRBD_USE_IOVEC 1
+#else
+#define LIBRBD_USE_IOVEC 0
+#endif
+
typedef enum {
RBD_AIO_READ,
RBD_AIO_WRITE,
@@ -310,6 +317,17 @@ static int qemu_rbd_set_conf(rados_t cluster, const char *conf,
return ret;
}
+static void qemu_rbd_memset(RADOSCB *rcb, int64_t offs)
+{
+ if (LIBRBD_USE_IOVEC) {
+ RBDAIOCB *acb = rcb->acb;
+ iov_memset(acb->qiov->iov, acb->qiov->niov, offs, 0,
+ acb->qiov->size - offs);
+ } else {
+ memset(rcb->buf + offs, 0, rcb->size - offs);
+ }
+}
+
static int qemu_rbd_create(const char *filename, QemuOpts *opts, Error **errp)
{
Error *local_err = NULL;
@@ -426,11 +444,11 @@ static void qemu_rbd_complete_aio(RADOSCB *rcb)
}
} else {
if (r < 0) {
- memset(rcb->buf, 0, rcb->size);
+ qemu_rbd_memset(rcb, 0);
acb->ret = r;
acb->error = 1;
} else if (r < rcb->size) {
- memset(rcb->buf + r, 0, rcb->size - r);
+ qemu_rbd_memset(rcb, r);
if (!acb->error) {
acb->ret = rcb->size;
}
@@ -441,10 +459,13 @@ static void qemu_rbd_complete_aio(RADOSCB *rcb)
g_free(rcb);
- if (acb->cmd == RBD_AIO_READ) {
- qemu_iovec_from_buf(acb->qiov, 0, acb->bounce, acb->qiov->size);
+ if (!LIBRBD_USE_IOVEC) {
+ if (acb->cmd == RBD_AIO_READ) {
+ qemu_iovec_from_buf(acb->qiov, 0, acb->bounce, acb->qiov->size);
+ }
+ qemu_vfree(acb->bounce);
}
- qemu_vfree(acb->bounce);
+
acb->common.cb(acb->common.opaque, (acb->ret > 0 ? 0 : acb->ret));
qemu_aio_unref(acb);
@@ -655,7 +676,6 @@ static BlockAIOCB *rbd_start_aio(BlockDriverState *bs,
RBDAIOCB *acb;
RADOSCB *rcb = NULL;
rbd_completion_t c;
- char *buf;
int r;
BDRVRBDState *s = bs->opaque;
@@ -664,27 +684,29 @@ static BlockAIOCB *rbd_start_aio(BlockDriverState *bs,
acb->cmd = cmd;
acb->qiov = qiov;
assert(!qiov || qiov->size == size);
- if (cmd == RBD_AIO_DISCARD || cmd == RBD_AIO_FLUSH) {
- acb->bounce = NULL;
- } else {
- acb->bounce = qemu_try_blockalign(bs, qiov->size);
- if (acb->bounce == NULL) {
- goto failed;
+
+ rcb = g_new(RADOSCB, 1);
+
+ if (!LIBRBD_USE_IOVEC) {
+ if (cmd == RBD_AIO_DISCARD || cmd == RBD_AIO_FLUSH) {
+ acb->bounce = NULL;
+ } else {
+ acb->bounce = qemu_try_blockalign(bs, qiov->size);
+ if (acb->bounce == NULL) {
+ goto failed;
+ }
}
+ if (cmd == RBD_AIO_WRITE) {
+ qemu_iovec_to_buf(acb->qiov, 0, acb->bounce, qiov->size);
+ }
+ rcb->buf = acb->bounce;
}
+
acb->ret = 0;
acb->error = 0;
acb->s = s;
- if (cmd == RBD_AIO_WRITE) {
- qemu_iovec_to_buf(acb->qiov, 0, acb->bounce, qiov->size);
- }
-
- buf = acb->bounce;
-
- rcb = g_new(RADOSCB, 1);
rcb->acb = acb;
- rcb->buf = buf;
rcb->s = acb->s;
rcb->size = size;
r = rbd_aio_create_completion(rcb, (rbd_callback_t) rbd_finish_aiocb, &c);
@@ -694,10 +716,18 @@ static BlockAIOCB *rbd_start_aio(BlockDriverState *bs,
switch (cmd) {
case RBD_AIO_WRITE:
- r = rbd_aio_write(s->image, off, size, buf, c);
+#ifdef LIBRBD_SUPPORTS_IOVEC
+ r = rbd_aio_writev(s->image, qiov->iov, qiov->niov, off, c);
+#else
+ r = rbd_aio_write(s->image, off, size, rcb->buf, c);
+#endif
break;
case RBD_AIO_READ:
- r = rbd_aio_read(s->image, off, size, buf, c);
+#ifdef LIBRBD_SUPPORTS_IOVEC
+ r = rbd_aio_readv(s->image, qiov->iov, qiov->niov, off, c);
+#else
+ r = rbd_aio_read(s->image, off, size, rcb->buf, c);
+#endif
break;
case RBD_AIO_DISCARD:
r = rbd_aio_discard_wrapper(s->image, off, size, c);
@@ -712,14 +742,16 @@ static BlockAIOCB *rbd_start_aio(BlockDriverState *bs,
if (r < 0) {
goto failed_completion;
}
-
return &acb->common;
failed_completion:
rbd_aio_release(c);
failed:
g_free(rcb);
- qemu_vfree(acb->bounce);
+ if (!LIBRBD_USE_IOVEC) {
+ qemu_vfree(acb->bounce);
+ }
+
qemu_aio_unref(acb);
return NULL;
}
--
2.10.2
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:50:03PM +0800, jazeltq@gmail.com wrote: > From: tianqing <tianqing@unitedstack.com> > > Rbd can do readv and writev directly, so wo do not need to transform > iov to buf or vice versa any more. > > Signed-off-by: tianqing <tianqing@unitedstack.com> > --- This is marked as an RFC still - is this a series you would like to see in 2.9?
2017-02-24 11:52 GMT+08:00 Jeff Cody <jcody@redhat.com>: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:50:03PM +0800, jazeltq@gmail.com wrote: >> From: tianqing <tianqing@unitedstack.com> >> >> Rbd can do readv and writev directly, so wo do not need to transform >> iov to buf or vice versa any more. >> >> Signed-off-by: tianqing <tianqing@unitedstack.com> >> --- > > > This is marked as an RFC still - is this a series you would like to see in > 2.9? Yes. What should i do if i like it in 2.9 -- 谦谦君子
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:09:31PM +0800, Jaze Lee wrote: > 2017-02-24 11:52 GMT+08:00 Jeff Cody <jcody@redhat.com>: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:50:03PM +0800, jazeltq@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: tianqing <tianqing@unitedstack.com> > >> > >> Rbd can do readv and writev directly, so wo do not need to transform > >> iov to buf or vice versa any more. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: tianqing <tianqing@unitedstack.com> > >> --- > > > > > > This is marked as an RFC still - is this a series you would like to see in > > 2.9? > > Yes. What should i do if i like it in 2.9 > Ideally you would submit the series as a non-RFC patch (that is, it would have progressed to a normal patch away from RFC). But in this case, it seems to me that this patch has progressed beyond RFC; is there any reason it is still marked as RFC instead of just a patch? It looks OK to me.
Sorry, I do not know. I thought we should always add RFC all though the patch's life... What is the prefix i should add? PATH 0 ? 2017-02-24 19:42 GMT+08:00 Jeff Cody <jcody@redhat.com>: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:09:31PM +0800, Jaze Lee wrote: >> 2017-02-24 11:52 GMT+08:00 Jeff Cody <jcody@redhat.com>: >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:50:03PM +0800, jazeltq@gmail.com wrote: >> >> From: tianqing <tianqing@unitedstack.com> >> >> >> >> Rbd can do readv and writev directly, so wo do not need to transform >> >> iov to buf or vice versa any more. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: tianqing <tianqing@unitedstack.com> >> >> --- >> > >> > >> > This is marked as an RFC still - is this a series you would like to see in >> > 2.9? >> >> Yes. What should i do if i like it in 2.9 >> > > Ideally you would submit the series as a non-RFC patch (that is, it would > have progressed to a normal patch away from RFC). > > But in this case, it seems to me that this patch has progressed beyond RFC; > is there any reason it is still marked as RFC instead of just a patch? It > looks OK to me. > -- 谦谦君子
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.