Tarantool development patches archive
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

  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