RBD APIs don't allow us to write more than the size set with
rbd_create() or rbd_resize().
In order to support growing images (eg. qcow2), we resize the
image before write operations that exceed the current size.

Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
---
v2:
  - use bs->total_sectors instead of adding a new field [Kevin]
  - resize the image only during write operation [Kevin]
    for read operation, the bdrv_aligned_preadv() already handles reads
    that exceed the length returned by bdrv_getlength(), so IMHO we can
    avoid to handle it in the rbd driver
---
 block/rbd.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/block/rbd.c b/block/rbd.c
index 0c549c9935..613e8f4982 100644
--- a/block/rbd.c
+++ b/block/rbd.c
@@ -934,13 +934,25 @@ static BlockAIOCB *rbd_start_aio(BlockDriverState *bs,
     }
 
     switch (cmd) {
-    case RBD_AIO_WRITE:
+    case RBD_AIO_WRITE: {
+        /*
+         * RBD APIs don't allow us to write more than actual size, so in order
+         * to support growing images, we resize the image before write
+         * operations that exceed the current size.
+         */
+        if (off + size > bs->total_sectors * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE) {
+            r = rbd_resize(s->image, off + size);
+            if (r < 0) {
+                goto failed_completion;
+            }
+        }
 #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:
 #ifdef LIBRBD_SUPPORTS_IOVEC
             r = rbd_aio_readv(s->image, qiov->iov, qiov->niov, off, c);
-- 
2.20.1

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:30 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> RBD APIs don't allow us to write more than the size set with
> rbd_create() or rbd_resize().
> In order to support growing images (eg. qcow2), we resize the
> image before write operations that exceed the current size.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
> ---
> v2:
>   - use bs->total_sectors instead of adding a new field [Kevin]
>   - resize the image only during write operation [Kevin]
>     for read operation, the bdrv_aligned_preadv() already handles reads
>     that exceed the length returned by bdrv_getlength(), so IMHO we can
>     avoid to handle it in the rbd driver
> ---
>  block/rbd.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/rbd.c b/block/rbd.c
> index 0c549c9935..613e8f4982 100644
> --- a/block/rbd.c
> +++ b/block/rbd.c
> @@ -934,13 +934,25 @@ static BlockAIOCB *rbd_start_aio(BlockDriverState *bs,
>      }
>
>      switch (cmd) {
> -    case RBD_AIO_WRITE:
> +    case RBD_AIO_WRITE: {
> +        /*
> +         * RBD APIs don't allow us to write more than actual size, so in order
> +         * to support growing images, we resize the image before write
> +         * operations that exceed the current size.
> +         */
> +        if (off + size > bs->total_sectors * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE) {

When will "bs->total_sectors" be refreshed to represent the correct
current size? You wouldn't want a future write whose extent was
greater than the original image size but less then a previous IO that
expanded the image to attempt to shrink the image.

> +            r = rbd_resize(s->image, off + size);
> +            if (r < 0) {
> +                goto failed_completion;
> +            }
> +        }
>  #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:
>  #ifdef LIBRBD_SUPPORTS_IOVEC
>              r = rbd_aio_readv(s->image, qiov->iov, qiov->niov, off, c);
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>


-- 
Jason

On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 01:21:23PM -0400, Jason Dillaman wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:30 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > RBD APIs don't allow us to write more than the size set with
> > rbd_create() or rbd_resize().
> > In order to support growing images (eg. qcow2), we resize the
> > image before write operations that exceed the current size.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > v2:
> >   - use bs->total_sectors instead of adding a new field [Kevin]
> >   - resize the image only during write operation [Kevin]
> >     for read operation, the bdrv_aligned_preadv() already handles reads
> >     that exceed the length returned by bdrv_getlength(), so IMHO we can
> >     avoid to handle it in the rbd driver
> > ---
> >  block/rbd.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/block/rbd.c b/block/rbd.c
> > index 0c549c9935..613e8f4982 100644
> > --- a/block/rbd.c
> > +++ b/block/rbd.c
> > @@ -934,13 +934,25 @@ static BlockAIOCB *rbd_start_aio(BlockDriverState *bs,
> >      }
> >
> >      switch (cmd) {
> > -    case RBD_AIO_WRITE:
> > +    case RBD_AIO_WRITE: {
> > +        /*
> > +         * RBD APIs don't allow us to write more than actual size, so in order
> > +         * to support growing images, we resize the image before write
> > +         * operations that exceed the current size.
> > +         */
> > +        if (off + size > bs->total_sectors * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE) {
> 
> When will "bs->total_sectors" be refreshed to represent the correct
> current size? You wouldn't want a future write whose extent was
> greater than the original image size but less then a previous IO that
> expanded the image to attempt to shrink the image.
> 

Good point!
IIUC it can happen, because in the bdrv_aligned_pwritev() we do these
steps:
1. call bdrv_driver_pwritev() that invokes "drv->bdrv_aio_pwritev" and
   then it waits calling "qemu_coroutine_yield()"
2. call bdrv_co_write_req_finish() that updates the "bs->total_sectors"

Between steps 1 and 2, maybe another request can be executed, then the
issue that you described can occur.

The solutions that I have in mind are:
a. Add a variable in the BDRVRBDState to track the latest resize.
b. Call rbd_get_size() before the rbd_resize() to be sure to avoid to shrink
   the image.
c. Updates the "bs->total_sectors" after the rbd_resize(), but I'm not
   sure it is allowed.

@Jason, @Kevin Do you have any advice?

Thanks,
Stefano

Am 06.05.2019 um 11:50 hat Stefano Garzarella geschrieben:
> On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 01:21:23PM -0400, Jason Dillaman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:30 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > RBD APIs don't allow us to write more than the size set with
> > > rbd_create() or rbd_resize().
> > > In order to support growing images (eg. qcow2), we resize the
> > > image before write operations that exceed the current size.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > v2:
> > >   - use bs->total_sectors instead of adding a new field [Kevin]
> > >   - resize the image only during write operation [Kevin]
> > >     for read operation, the bdrv_aligned_preadv() already handles reads
> > >     that exceed the length returned by bdrv_getlength(), so IMHO we can
> > >     avoid to handle it in the rbd driver
> > > ---
> > >  block/rbd.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/block/rbd.c b/block/rbd.c
> > > index 0c549c9935..613e8f4982 100644
> > > --- a/block/rbd.c
> > > +++ b/block/rbd.c
> > > @@ -934,13 +934,25 @@ static BlockAIOCB *rbd_start_aio(BlockDriverState *bs,
> > >      }
> > >
> > >      switch (cmd) {
> > > -    case RBD_AIO_WRITE:
> > > +    case RBD_AIO_WRITE: {
> > > +        /*
> > > +         * RBD APIs don't allow us to write more than actual size, so in order
> > > +         * to support growing images, we resize the image before write
> > > +         * operations that exceed the current size.
> > > +         */
> > > +        if (off + size > bs->total_sectors * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE) {
> > 
> > When will "bs->total_sectors" be refreshed to represent the correct
> > current size? You wouldn't want a future write whose extent was
> > greater than the original image size but less then a previous IO that
> > expanded the image to attempt to shrink the image.
> > 
> 
> Good point!
> IIUC it can happen, because in the bdrv_aligned_pwritev() we do these
> steps:
> 1. call bdrv_driver_pwritev() that invokes "drv->bdrv_aio_pwritev" and
>    then it waits calling "qemu_coroutine_yield()"
> 2. call bdrv_co_write_req_finish() that updates the "bs->total_sectors"
> 
> Between steps 1 and 2, maybe another request can be executed, then the
> issue that you described can occur.
> 
> The solutions that I have in mind are:
> a. Add a variable in the BDRVRBDState to track the latest resize.

This would work and be relatively simple.

> b. Call rbd_get_size() before the rbd_resize() to be sure to avoid to shrink
>    the image.

I'm not sure if rbd_get_size() involves network traffic or other
significant complexity. If so, I'd definitely avoid it.

> c. Updates the "bs->total_sectors" after the rbd_resize(), but I'm not
>    sure it is allowed.
> 
> @Jason, @Kevin Do you have any advice?

We need to make sure to run everything that bdrv_co_write_req_finish()
does for resizing an image:

    bs->total_sectors = end_sector;
    bdrv_parent_cb_resize(bs);
    bdrv_dirty_bitmap_truncate(bs, end_sector << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS);

Just duplicating that code wouldn't be good; if something is added, we'd
probably forget updating rbd, too. So I think your solution c would at
least involve refactoring the above code into a separate function that
can be called from rbd.

But solution a might actually be the simplest. In this case, sorry for
giving you bad advice in v1 of the patch.

Kevin

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 11:43:50AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 06.05.2019 um 11:50 hat Stefano Garzarella geschrieben:
> > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 01:21:23PM -0400, Jason Dillaman wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:30 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > RBD APIs don't allow us to write more than the size set with
> > > > rbd_create() or rbd_resize().
> > > > In order to support growing images (eg. qcow2), we resize the
> > > > image before write operations that exceed the current size.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > v2:
> > > >   - use bs->total_sectors instead of adding a new field [Kevin]
> > > >   - resize the image only during write operation [Kevin]
> > > >     for read operation, the bdrv_aligned_preadv() already handles reads
> > > >     that exceed the length returned by bdrv_getlength(), so IMHO we can
> > > >     avoid to handle it in the rbd driver
> > > > ---
> > > >  block/rbd.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/block/rbd.c b/block/rbd.c
> > > > index 0c549c9935..613e8f4982 100644
> > > > --- a/block/rbd.c
> > > > +++ b/block/rbd.c
> > > > @@ -934,13 +934,25 @@ static BlockAIOCB *rbd_start_aio(BlockDriverState *bs,
> > > >      }
> > > >
> > > >      switch (cmd) {
> > > > -    case RBD_AIO_WRITE:
> > > > +    case RBD_AIO_WRITE: {
> > > > +        /*
> > > > +         * RBD APIs don't allow us to write more than actual size, so in order
> > > > +         * to support growing images, we resize the image before write
> > > > +         * operations that exceed the current size.
> > > > +         */
> > > > +        if (off + size > bs->total_sectors * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE) {
> > > 
> > > When will "bs->total_sectors" be refreshed to represent the correct
> > > current size? You wouldn't want a future write whose extent was
> > > greater than the original image size but less then a previous IO that
> > > expanded the image to attempt to shrink the image.
> > > 
> > 
> > Good point!
> > IIUC it can happen, because in the bdrv_aligned_pwritev() we do these
> > steps:
> > 1. call bdrv_driver_pwritev() that invokes "drv->bdrv_aio_pwritev" and
> >    then it waits calling "qemu_coroutine_yield()"
> > 2. call bdrv_co_write_req_finish() that updates the "bs->total_sectors"
> > 
> > Between steps 1 and 2, maybe another request can be executed, then the
> > issue that you described can occur.
> > 
> > The solutions that I have in mind are:
> > a. Add a variable in the BDRVRBDState to track the latest resize.
> 
> This would work and be relatively simple.
> 
> > b. Call rbd_get_size() before the rbd_resize() to be sure to avoid to shrink
> >    the image.
> 
> I'm not sure if rbd_get_size() involves network traffic or other
> significant complexity. If so, I'd definitely avoid it.
> 
> > c. Updates the "bs->total_sectors" after the rbd_resize(), but I'm not
> >    sure it is allowed.
> > 
> > @Jason, @Kevin Do you have any advice?
> 
> We need to make sure to run everything that bdrv_co_write_req_finish()
> does for resizing an image:
> 
>     bs->total_sectors = end_sector;
>     bdrv_parent_cb_resize(bs);
>     bdrv_dirty_bitmap_truncate(bs, end_sector << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS);
> 
> Just duplicating that code wouldn't be good; if something is added, we'd
> probably forget updating rbd, too. So I think your solution c would at
> least involve refactoring the above code into a separate function that
> can be called from rbd.
> 
> But solution a might actually be the simplest. In this case, sorry for
> giving you bad advice in v1 of the patch.
> 

I agree with you, 'a' should be simplest to implement.

I'll send a v3 fixing this.

Thanks,
Stefano