include/block/block.h | 1 + block.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tests/qemu-iotests/245 | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- tests/qemu-iotests/245.out | 4 +-- 4 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Hi, during the past months we talked about making x-blockdev-reopen stable API, and one of the missing things was having support for changing bs->file. See here for the discusssion (I can't find the message from Kashyap that started the thread in the web archives): https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-10/msg00922.html I was testing this and one of the problems that I found was that removing a filter node using this command is tricky because of the permission system, see here for details: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-12/msg00092.html The good news is that Vladimir posted a set of patches that changes the way that permissions are updated on reopen: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-11/msg00745.html I was testing if this would be useful to solve the problem that I mentioned earlier and it seems to be the case so I wrote a patch to add support for changing bs->file, along with a couple of test cases. This is still an RFC but you can see the idea. These patches apply on top of Vladimir's branch: git: https://src.openvz.org/scm/~vsementsov/qemu.git tag: up-block-topologic-perm-v2 Opinions are very welcome! Berto Alberto Garcia (2): block: Allow changing bs->file on reopen iotests: Update 245 to support replacing files with x-blockdev-reopen include/block/block.h | 1 + block.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tests/qemu-iotests/245 | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- tests/qemu-iotests/245.out | 4 +-- 4 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) -- 2.20.1
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:02:36PM +0100, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> during the past months we talked about making x-blockdev-reopen stable
> API, and one of the missing things was having support for changing
> bs->file. See here for the discusssion (I can't find the message from
> Kashyap that started the thread in the web archives):
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-10/msg00922.html
Yeah, I noticed that too -- seems like it got "lost" somehow :-(. For
the record, I've attached here the original e-mail I sent on 06-OCT-2020
that started the above thread.
Thanks for working on this!
> I was testing this and one of the problems that I found was that
> removing a filter node using this command is tricky because of the
> permission system, see here for details:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-12/msg00092.html
>
> The good news is that Vladimir posted a set of patches that changes
> the way that permissions are updated on reopen:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-11/msg00745.html
>
> I was testing if this would be useful to solve the problem that I
> mentioned earlier and it seems to be the case so I wrote a patch to
> add support for changing bs->file, along with a couple of test cases.
>
> This is still an RFC but you can see the idea.
>
> These patches apply on top of Vladimir's branch:
>
> git: https://src.openvz.org/scm/~vsementsov/qemu.git
> tag: up-block-topologic-perm-v2
>
> Opinions are very welcome!
>
> Berto
>
> Alberto Garcia (2):
> block: Allow changing bs->file on reopen
> iotests: Update 245 to support replacing files with x-blockdev-reopen
>
> include/block/block.h | 1 +
> block.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tests/qemu-iotests/245 | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> tests/qemu-iotests/245.out | 4 +--
> 4 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>
--
/kashyap
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:10:01 +0200
From: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org
Cc: berto@igalia.com, eblake@redhat.com
Subject: Plans to bring QMP 'x-blockdev-reopen' out of experimental?
Message-ID: <20201006091001.GA64583@paraplu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi, folks
If this was already discussed on the list, please point me to the
thread. I took a quick look at my local archives, I didn't find any,
besides patches to tests.
I learn that `x-blockdev-reopen` enables a couple of interesting use
cases:
(#) Allowing one to live-change the backing file to point to a different
location, with the target having content identical to original.
This one I was already familiar with.
(#) Yesterday I learnt another use case from Peter Krempa and Eric
Blake. Allow me to quote (paraphrasing) Eric's example from IRC.
E.g. we have (where 'overlay1' has a bitmap):
base <- overlay1
Then create a temporary snapshot (which results a bitmap being
created in 'overlay2', because 'overlay1' had one):
base <- overlay1 <- overlay2
If you want to do a `block-commit` to merge 'overlay2' back into
'overlay1', currently upstream QEMU does not merge the bitmap states
from 'overlay2' back into 'overlay1' properly. This current
limitation is because QEMU can't merge the bitmaps unless it can
reopen 'overlay1' [for read-write] _prior_ to doing the commit — but
the only way to do that is with `x-blockdev-reopen`.
- - -
From an old chat with Berto on #qemu, he was looking for some more
robust testing, before lifting it out of experimental mode, as it was a
rather complicated command to implement.
Currently, I see there are some 'qemu-iotests' that exercise
'x-blockdev-reopen': 155, 165, 245, and 248. What else kind of tests
can give more confidence?
(I personally don't have an urgent need for this, so I'm not trying to
rush anything. :-))
--
/kashyap
15.01.2021 16:02, Alberto Garcia wrote: > Hi, > > during the past months we talked about making x-blockdev-reopen stable > API, and one of the missing things was having support for changing > bs->file. See here for the discusssion (I can't find the message from > Kashyap that started the thread in the web archives): > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-10/msg00922.html > > I was testing this and one of the problems that I found was that > removing a filter node using this command is tricky because of the > permission system, see here for details: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-12/msg00092.html > > The good news is that Vladimir posted a set of patches that changes > the way that permissions are updated on reopen: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-11/msg00745.html > > I was testing if this would be useful to solve the problem that I > mentioned earlier and it seems to be the case so I wrote a patch to > add support for changing bs->file, along with a couple of test cases. > > This is still an RFC but you can see the idea. Good idea and I glad to see that my patches help:) Hmm, still, removing a filter which want to unshare WRITE even when doesn't have any parents will be a problem anyway, so we'll need a new command to drop filter with a logic like in bdrv_drop_filter in my series. Or, we can introduce multiple reopen.. So that x-blockdev-reopen will take a list of BlockdevOptions, and do all modifications in one transaction. Than we'll be able to drop filter by transactional update of top node child and removing filter child link. > > These patches apply on top of Vladimir's branch: > > git: https://src.openvz.org/scm/~vsementsov/qemu.git > tag: up-block-topologic-perm-v2 > > Opinions are very welcome! > > Berto > > Alberto Garcia (2): > block: Allow changing bs->file on reopen > iotests: Update 245 to support replacing files with x-blockdev-reopen > > include/block/block.h | 1 + > block.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/qemu-iotests/245 | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > tests/qemu-iotests/245.out | 4 +-- > 4 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > -- Best regards, Vladimir
On Mon 18 Jan 2021 11:22:49 AM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >> This is still an RFC but you can see the idea. > > Good idea and I glad to see that my patches help:) > > Hmm, still, removing a filter which want to unshare WRITE even when > doesn't have any parents will be a problem anyway, so we'll need a new > command to drop filter with a logic like in bdrv_drop_filter in my > series. Do you have an example? Berto
20.01.2021 16:51, Alberto Garcia wrote: > On Mon 18 Jan 2021 11:22:49 AM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >>> This is still an RFC but you can see the idea. >> >> Good idea and I glad to see that my patches help:) >> >> Hmm, still, removing a filter which want to unshare WRITE even when >> doesn't have any parents will be a problem anyway, so we'll need a new >> command to drop filter with a logic like in bdrv_drop_filter in my >> series. > > Do you have an example? > backup_top filter -- Best regards, Vladimir
Am 18.01.2021 um 11:22 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: > 15.01.2021 16:02, Alberto Garcia wrote: > > Hi, > > > > during the past months we talked about making x-blockdev-reopen stable > > API, and one of the missing things was having support for changing > > bs->file. See here for the discusssion (I can't find the message from > > Kashyap that started the thread in the web archives): > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-10/msg00922.html > > > > I was testing this and one of the problems that I found was that > > removing a filter node using this command is tricky because of the > > permission system, see here for details: > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-12/msg00092.html > > > > The good news is that Vladimir posted a set of patches that changes > > the way that permissions are updated on reopen: > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2020-11/msg00745.html > > > > I was testing if this would be useful to solve the problem that I > > mentioned earlier and it seems to be the case so I wrote a patch to > > add support for changing bs->file, along with a couple of test cases. > > > > This is still an RFC but you can see the idea. > > Good idea and I glad to see that my patches help:) > > Hmm, still, removing a filter which want to unshare WRITE even when > doesn't have any parents will be a problem anyway, so we'll need a new > command to drop filter with a logic like in bdrv_drop_filter in my > series. > > Or, we can introduce multiple reopen.. So that x-blockdev-reopen will > take a list of BlockdevOptions, and do all modifications in one > transaction. Than we'll be able to drop filter by transactional update > of top node child and removing filter child link. Internally, we already have reopen queues anyway, so it would make sense to me to expose them externally and take a list of BlockdevOptions. This way we should be able to do even complex changes of the graph where adding some edges requires the removal of other edges in a single atomic operation. Kevin
On Thu 21 Jan 2021 11:52:17 AM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Hmm, still, removing a filter which want to unshare WRITE even when
>> doesn't have any parents will be a problem anyway, so we'll need a
>> new command to drop filter with a logic like in bdrv_drop_filter in
>> my series.
>>
>> Or, we can introduce multiple reopen.. So that x-blockdev-reopen will
>> take a list of BlockdevOptions, and do all modifications in one
>> transaction. Than we'll be able to drop filter by transactional
>> update of top node child and removing filter child link.
>
> Internally, we already have reopen queues anyway, so it would make
> sense to me to expose them externally and take a list of
> BlockdevOptions. This way we should be able to do even complex
> changes of the graph where adding some edges requires the removal of
> other edges in a single atomic operation.
So you mean changing the signature to something like this?
{ 'command': 'x-blockdev-reopen',
'data': { 'options': ['BlockdevOptions'] } }
It should be easy to make that change, I can have a look.
Berto
Am 05.02.2021 um 13:47 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
> On Thu 21 Jan 2021 11:52:17 AM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> Hmm, still, removing a filter which want to unshare WRITE even when
> >> doesn't have any parents will be a problem anyway, so we'll need a
> >> new command to drop filter with a logic like in bdrv_drop_filter in
> >> my series.
> >>
> >> Or, we can introduce multiple reopen.. So that x-blockdev-reopen will
> >> take a list of BlockdevOptions, and do all modifications in one
> >> transaction. Than we'll be able to drop filter by transactional
> >> update of top node child and removing filter child link.
> >
> > Internally, we already have reopen queues anyway, so it would make
> > sense to me to expose them externally and take a list of
> > BlockdevOptions. This way we should be able to do even complex
> > changes of the graph where adding some edges requires the removal of
> > other edges in a single atomic operation.
>
> So you mean changing the signature to something like this?
>
> { 'command': 'x-blockdev-reopen',
> 'data': { 'options': ['BlockdevOptions'] } }
>
> It should be easy to make that change, I can have a look.
Yes, this is what I had in mind.
Kevin
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.