Libguestfs - Mar 2019 - Re: Supporting sparse disks in nbdkit

On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 10:50:35AM -0600, Eric Blake
wrote:
> >   int extents (void *handle, uint32_t count, uint64_t offset,
> >                uint32_t flags /* always 0? */,
> 
> Unless we support the REQ_ONE flag (where the client specifically wants
> only one extent returned).
...
> > nbdkit would need to do some massaging on this to get it into the
> > right format for NBD_CMD_BLOCK_STATUS.  (I'm very confused about
what
> > NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE is supposed to do.)
> 
> REQ_ONE says that a successful answer has to be exactly one extent,
> covering only the head of the region. (That is, force the server to
> behave as if obtaining information beyond the first extent is
> expensive). It also tells the server that it must not report extra
> information beyond the initial request (because at least qemu 3.0 would
> assert that the server supplied too much information).
> 
> You're also right that nbdkit can do REQ_ONE massaging, so whether we
> pass REQ_ONE on to the client or not makes it sound like the client
> needs a tri-state opt-in (no block status support, block status but let
> nbdkit handle REQ_ONE, block status and the plugin can handle REQ_ONE
> efficiently itself)
I had a think about the REQ_ONE flag a little.  What do you think
about this plan?

If NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE is passed by the nbd client, nbdkit does not
need to pass it to the plugin.  Instead nbdkit would turn the request
into:

extents (count = 1, offset = <offset>)

The plugin could still respond with multiple extents, but nbdkit would
pick only the one covering the <offset> to send back.

In this case can_extents would return just a boolean since there is no
special supported needed by the plugin AFAICT.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine.  Supports Linux and Windows.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/

On 3/11/19 2:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 10:50:35AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>   int extents (void *handle, uint32_t count, uint64_t offset,
>>>                uint32_t flags /* always 0? */,
>>
>> Unless we support the REQ_ONE flag (where the client specifically wants
>> only one extent returned).
> ...
>>> nbdkit would need to do some massaging on this to get it into the
>>> right format for NBD_CMD_BLOCK_STATUS.  (I'm very confused
about what
>>> NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE is supposed to do.)
>>
>> REQ_ONE says that a successful answer has to be exactly one extent,
>> covering only the head of the region. (That is, force the server to
>> behave as if obtaining information beyond the first extent is
>> expensive). It also tells the server that it must not report extra
>> information beyond the initial request (because at least qemu 3.0 would
>> assert that the server supplied too much information).
>>
>> You're also right that nbdkit can do REQ_ONE massaging, so whether
we
>> pass REQ_ONE on to the client or not makes it sound like the client
>> needs a tri-state opt-in (no block status support, block status but let
>> nbdkit handle REQ_ONE, block status and the plugin can handle REQ_ONE
>> efficiently itself)
> 
> I had a think about the REQ_ONE flag a little.  What do you think
> about this plan?
> 
> If NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE is passed by the nbd client, nbdkit does not
> need to pass it to the plugin.  Instead nbdkit would turn the request
> into:
> 
> extents (count = 1, offset = <offset>)
> 
> The plugin could still respond with multiple extents, but nbdkit would
> pick only the one covering the <offset> to send back.
> 
> In this case can_extents would return just a boolean since there is no
> special supported needed by the plugin AFAICT.
Seems like it would work. Still, I worry that some plugin might be doing
some expensive work to compute a list of extents, only for nbdkit to
throw that work away, vs. being able to accept a flag to know that
nothing more than one extent will be used so the plugin might as well
quit work early if it wants. Maybe we just document that we pass the
flag through when the client requested it, but also permit the plugin to
ignore the flag (plugins that care have the flag to optimize by, and
plugins that don't care will not violate client expectations because
nbdkit clamps the answer appropriately).

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 02:53:55PM -0500, Eric Blake
wrote:
>On 3/11/19 2:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 10:50:35AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>>   int extents (void *handle, uint32_t count, uint64_t offset,
>>>>                uint32_t flags /* always 0? */,
>>>
>>> Unless we support the REQ_ONE flag (where the client specifically
wants
>>> only one extent returned).
>> ...
>>>> nbdkit would need to do some massaging on this to get it into
the
>>>> right format for NBD_CMD_BLOCK_STATUS.  (I'm very confused
about what
>>>> NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE is supposed to do.)
>>>
>>> REQ_ONE says that a successful answer has to be exactly one extent,
>>> covering only the head of the region. (That is, force the server to
>>> behave as if obtaining information beyond the first extent is
>>> expensive). It also tells the server that it must not report extra
>>> information beyond the initial request (because at least qemu 3.0
would
>>> assert that the server supplied too much information).
>>>
>>> You're also right that nbdkit can do REQ_ONE massaging, so
whether we
>>> pass REQ_ONE on to the client or not makes it sound like the client
>>> needs a tri-state opt-in (no block status support, block status but
let
>>> nbdkit handle REQ_ONE, block status and the plugin can handle
REQ_ONE
>>> efficiently itself)
>>
>> I had a think about the REQ_ONE flag a little.  What do you think
>> about this plan?
>>
>> If NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE is passed by the nbd client, nbdkit does not
>> need to pass it to the plugin.  Instead nbdkit would turn the request
>> into:
>>
>> extents (count = 1, offset = <offset>)
>>
>> The plugin could still respond with multiple extents, but nbdkit would
>> pick only the one covering the <offset> to send back.
>>
>> In this case can_extents would return just a boolean since there is no
>> special supported needed by the plugin AFAICT.
>
Is that needed then?  You would know whether the plugin can do extents() based
on the function pointer being set or not.  I mean can_write makes sense as that
is per file (volume/anything), but can_extents would be set per plugin and it
would be set to ".extents != NULL".
>Seems like it would work. Still, I worry that some plugin might be doing
>some expensive work to compute a list of extents, only for nbdkit to
>throw that work away, vs. being able to accept a flag to know that
>nothing more than one extent will be used so the plugin might as well
>quit work early if it wants. Maybe we just document that we pass the
>flag through when the client requested it, but also permit the plugin to
>ignore the flag (plugins that care have the flag to optimize by, and
>plugins that don't care will not violate client expectations because
>nbdkit clamps the answer appropriately).
>
That would be visible by the `@count` parameter.  But if that count will only be
0 (give me all you've got) and 1 (basically translated REQ_ONE), maybe
instead
of passing the `count`, it could be just the flag, i.e.: extents(offset, flags).
When I think about it, what seems more usable might be a `length` parameter so
that the plugin does not need to check the whole file if someone is asking for a
part of the disk only.  Of course that thinking might be flawed as I don't
know
what the request looks like in the NBD protocol.
>--
>Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
>Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
>Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org
>