[GEDI] [PATCH] block: gluster: Probe alignment limits

[Niels de Vos]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 07:04:17PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 17.08.19 23:21, Nir Soffer wrote:
> > Implement alignment probing similar to file-posix, by reading from the
> > first 4k of the image.
> > 
> > Before this change, provisioning a VM on storage with sector size of
> > 4096 bytes would fail when the installer try to create filesystems. Here
> > is an example command that reproduces this issue:
> > 
> >     $ qemu-system-x86_64 -accel kvm -m 2048 -smp 2 \
> >         -drive file=gluster://gluster1/gv0/fedora29.raw,format=raw,cache=none \
> >         -cdrom Fedora-Server-dvd-x86_64-29-1.2.iso
> > 
> > The installer fails in few seconds when trying to create filesystem on
> > /dev/mapper/fedora-root. In error report we can see that it failed with
> > EINVAL (I could not extract the error from guest).
> > 
> > Copying disk fails with EINVAL:
> > 
> >     $ qemu-img convert -p -f raw -O raw -t none -T none \
> >         gluster://gluster1/gv0/fedora29.raw \
> >         gluster://gluster1/gv0/fedora29-clone.raw
> >     qemu-img: error while writing sector 4190208: Invalid argument
> > 
> > This is a fix to same issue fixed in commit a6b257a08e3d (file-posix:
> > Handle undetectable alignment) for gluster:// images.
> > 
> > This fix has the same limit, that the first block of the image should be
> > allocated, otherwise we cannot detect the alignment and fallback to a
> > safe value (4096) even when using storage with sector size of 512 bytes.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nir Soffer <nsoffer at redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  block/gluster.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/gluster.c b/block/gluster.c
> > index f64dc5b01e..d936240b72 100644
> > --- a/block/gluster.c
> > +++ b/block/gluster.c
> > @@ -52,6 +52,9 @@
> >  
> >  #define GERR_INDEX_HINT "hint: check in 'server' array index '%d'\n"
> >  
> > +/* The value is known only on the server side. */
> > +#define MAX_ALIGN 4096
> > +
> >  typedef struct GlusterAIOCB {
> >      int64_t size;
> >      int ret;
> > @@ -902,8 +905,52 @@ out:
> >      return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Check if read is allowed with given memory buffer and length.
> > + *
> > + * This function is used to check O_DIRECT request alignment.
> > + */
> > +static bool gluster_is_io_aligned(struct glfs_fd *fd, void *buf, size_t len)
> > +{
> > +    ssize_t ret = glfs_pread(fd, buf, len, 0, 0, NULL);
> > +    return ret >= 0 || errno != EINVAL;
> 
> Is glfs_pread() guaranteed to return EINVAL on invalid alignment?
> file-posix says this is only the case on Linux (for normal files).  Now
> I also don’t know whether the gluster driver works on anything but Linux
> anyway.

The behaviour depends on the filesystem used by the Gluster backend. XFS
is the recommendation, but in the end it is up to the users. The Gluster
server is known to work on Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD, the vast majority
of users runs it on Linux.

I do not think there is a strong guarantee EINVAL is always correct. How
about only checking 'ret > 0'?

> 
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void gluster_probe_alignment(BlockDriverState *bs, struct glfs_fd *fd,
> > +                                    Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +    char *buf;
> > +    size_t alignments[] = {1, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096};
> > +    size_t align;
> > +    int i;
> > +
> > +    buf = qemu_memalign(MAX_ALIGN, MAX_ALIGN);
> > +
> > +    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(alignments); i++) {
> > +        align = alignments[i];
> > +        if (gluster_is_io_aligned(fd, buf, align)) {
> > +            /* Fallback to safe value. */
> > +            bs->bl.request_alignment = (align != 1) ? align : MAX_ALIGN;
> > +            break;
> > +        }
> > +    }
> 
> I don’t like the fact that the last element of alignments[] should be
> the same as MAX_ALIGN, without that ever having been made explicit anywhere.
> 
> It’s a bit worse in the file-posix patch, because if getpagesize() is
> greater than 4k, max_align will be greater than 4k.  But MAX_BLOCKSIZE
> is 4k, too, so I suppose we wouldn’t support any block size beyond that
> anyway, which makes the error message appropriate still.
> 
> > +
> > +    qemu_vfree(buf);
> > +
> > +    if (!bs->bl.request_alignment) {
> > +        error_setg(errp, "Could not find working O_DIRECT alignment");
> > +        error_append_hint(errp, "Try cache.direct=off\n");
> > +    }
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void qemu_gluster_refresh_limits(BlockDriverState *bs, Error **errp)
> >  {
> > +    BDRVGlusterState *s = bs->opaque;
> > +
> > +    gluster_probe_alignment(bs, s->fd, errp);
> > +
> > +    bs->bl.min_mem_alignment = bs->bl.request_alignment;
> 
> Well, I’ll just trust you that there is no weird system where the memory
> alignment is greater than the request alignment.
> 
> > +    bs->bl.opt_mem_alignment = MAX(bs->bl.request_alignment, MAX_ALIGN);
> 
> Isn’t request_alignment guaranteed to not exceed MAX_ALIGN, i.e. isn’t
> this always MAX_ALIGN?
> 
> >      bs->bl.max_transfer = GLUSTER_MAX_TRANSFER;
> >  }
> 
> file-posix has a check in raw_reopen_prepare() whether we can find a
> working alignment for the new FD.  Shouldn’t we do the same in
> qemu_gluster_reopen_prepare()?

Yes, I think that makes sense too.

Niels