From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> To: Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org> Cc: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>, tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] fio/coio: handle partial writes Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 12:00:44 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200515090044.GA2242@grain> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200506170818.xhs2yda3oz6426az@tkn_work_nb> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:08:18PM +0300, Alexander Turenko wrote: > > issue https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4651 > > branch gorcunov/gh-4651-partial-write > > > diff --git a/src/lib/core/coio_file.c b/src/lib/core/coio_file.c > > index e2345567c..e290214bc 100644 > > --- a/src/lib/core/coio_file.c > > +++ b/src/lib/core/coio_file.c > > @@ -164,10 +164,30 @@ coio_file_close(int fd) > > ssize_t > > coio_pwrite(int fd, const void *buf, size_t count, off_t offset) > > { > > In Febrary ([1]) we start discussing whether the loop should be in fio > or in coio. coio_p?write() returns amount of written bytes, so it seems > logical to keep it performing one write and move the loop to > src/lua/fio.c. > > To be honest, I don't sure here. If you have a reason to keep the logic > here, please, explain it. Because lua interface should not dive into low-level coio_ engine, moreover implementing it at this level we'are allowed to reuse coio_ helpers in future. In turn if we implement this on fio level we can't reuse it anywhere outside. > I'll CC Vlad, maybe he has more strong vision here. > > [1]: https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/2020-February/014403.html > > > @@ -201,6 +221,11 @@ static void > > coio_do_write(eio_req *req) > > { > > struct coio_file_task *eio = (struct coio_file_task *)req->data; > > + > > + ERROR_INJECT(ERRINJ_COIO_WRITE_CHUNK, { > > + eio->write.count = 1; > > + }); > > Why not set it right in coio_write() to don't spread the logic? Because the error should happen as close to native write call as possible to simulate real behaviour. So I rebased the patch on latest master and pushed it back.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-15 9:00 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-04-21 21:39 Cyrill Gorcunov 2020-05-06 17:08 ` Alexander Turenko 2020-05-15 9:00 ` Cyrill Gorcunov [this message] 2020-06-09 16:55 ` Alexander Turenko 2020-06-09 22:55 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy 2020-06-09 22:55 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy 2020-06-10 7:52 ` Cyrill Gorcunov 2020-06-11 19:36 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy 2020-06-11 19:43 ` Cyrill Gorcunov 2020-06-11 19:56 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy 2020-06-11 20:12 ` Cyrill Gorcunov 2020-06-11 19:56 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2019-11-26 18:05 [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] fio/coio: Handle " Cyrill Gorcunov 2019-12-04 9:44 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20200515090044.GA2242@grain \ --to=gorcunov@gmail.com \ --cc=alexander.turenko@tarantool.org \ --cc=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \ --cc=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \ --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] fio/coio: handle partial writes' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox