similar to: [PATCH nbdkit v4 0/2] cache: Implement cache-max-size and method of

These are essentially identical to what was previously posted as patches 6/9 through 9/9 here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2018-December/msg00145.html except that it has been rebased onto the current git master and retested thoroughly. Rich.

Patch 1 is the same as last time, except for a minor comment fix. Patch 2 should address everything that Eric mentioned in his review, and has been retested. Rich.

This patch series enhances the cache filter in a few ways, primarily adding a "cache-on-read" feature (similar to qemu's copyonread); and adding the ability to limit the cache size and the antecedent of that which is having a method to reclaim cache blocks. As the cache is stored as a sparse temporary file, reclaiming cache blocks simply means punching holes in the temporary file.

v4: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2019-January/msg00032.html v5: - Now we set the block size at run time. I'd like to say that I was able to test this change, but unfortunately I couldn't find any easy way to create a filesystem on x86-64 with a block size > 4K. Ext4 doesn't support it at all, and XFS doesn't support block size > page size (and I

On 1/1/19 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. > However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a > background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only > available during requests. > > Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* > function checks whether

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim up to two blocks from the cache

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim up to two blocks from the cache

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim up to two blocks from the cache

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim up to two blocks from the cache

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim up to two blocks from the cache

On 1/3/19 6:37 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. > However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a > background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only > available during requests. > > Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* > function checks whether

v1 was here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2019-January/msg00008.html In v2 I have provided two patches: The first patch extends attribute((nonnull)) to most internal functions, but not to the external API. The second patch uses a macro so that attribute((format)) is only used in the public API on GCC or Clang. At least in theory these headers could be used by a C compiler which

This is exactly the same as v1: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2018-December/msg00004.html except that it now frees the bitmap on unload (which the old code did not - there was always a memory leak). Rich.

I have some patches I'm working on to fix the cache filter. However this is a prelude. It should be simply pure refactoring. All tests pass still. Rich.

v2: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2018-December/msg00039.html v2 -> v3: - Fix all the issues raised in Eric's review. - Precompute some numbers to make the calculations easier. - Calculations now use bitshifts and masks in preference to division and modulo. - Clear existing bits before setting (which fixes a bug in the cache filter). Rich.

Should we use attribute((nonnull)) at all? There's a very interesting history of this in libvirt -- try looking at commit eefb881 plus the commits referencing eefb881 -- but it does seem to work for me using recent GCC and Clang. I only did a few functions because annotating them gets old quickly... Rich.

Based on Rich's review of my v1 that touched only cache.c, I have now tried to bring all three filters with alignment rounding in line with one another. There is definitely room for future improvements once we teach nbdkit to let filters and plugins advertise block sizes, but I'm hoping to get NBD_CMD_CACHE implemented first. Eric Blake (2): blocksize: Process requests in linear order

Although the time spent in memcpy/memset probably pales in comparison to time spent in socket I/O, it's still worth worth reducing the number of times we have to utilize a bounce buffer when we already have aligned data. Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> --- filters/cache/cache.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 21

This adds a cache filter, which works like the COW filter in reverse. For realistic use it needs a bit more work, especially to add limits on the size of the cache, a more sensible cache replacement policy, and perhaps some kind of background worker to write dirty blocks out. Rich.

Eric, you'll probably find the design "interesting" ... It does work, for me at least. Rich.