Re: [libvirt] [RFC PATCH] threshold: new API virDomainBlockSetWriteThreshold

On 05/26/2015 04:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 11:11:14AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: >> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 21:45:56 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:

>> Double? Your last proposal used unsigned long long. Using double with >> byte sizes seems a bit odd to me. The file size won't exceed unsigned >> long long for a while so I don't see a reason to use double here. > > Yes, I'm inclined to say u long long too, since that's what we use throughout > the APIs for representing disk image sizes. So in the unlikely event that > we do hit the limits of unsigned long long, we'd have countless APIs to > change regardless. I intended that: virDomainSetWriteThreshold(dom, disk, 10*1024*1024*1024, 0) would be the obvious way of setting a threshold at 10G, and that: virDomainSetWriteThreshold(dom, disk, 81.47295, VIR_DOMAIN_BLOCK_SET_WRITE_THRESHOLD_PERCENTAGE) would set the disk to 81.47295% of the current size (rounded to a suitable granularity, even if such rounding is merely truncating to the nearest int). Basically, the code I added in libvirt-domain.c enforces that value >= 0 (negative and NaN are not permitted; -0.0 behaves the same as +0.0), and that value <= ULLONG_MAX (for flags == 0) or <= 100.0 (for flags specifying percentage). When flags is 0, this means that for values < 2^53, the byte value is accurate if the user computes their limit in unsigned long long and uses automatic conversion to double; for values between 2^53 and 2^64, you lose precision on the low end [but who needs that much granularity on disks that big, right?], and values > 2^64 (including +inf) are forbidden - so we are still handling things in unsigned long long. If someone plays games by passing 12345678.9, the code will round to a nearby int (whether 12345678 or 12345679 probably won't matter too much, but the docs tried to make it clear that it is up to the hypervisor what rounding occurs). And no matter what the user passes in, the number is converted to unsigned long long before use, and all output functions report it in ullong. The main reason I wanted double was to make percentages more natural; by using a double, the user is in full control of how much precision to use (100.1, 100.1234564, ...), and for disks smaller than 2^53, the user can use percentage to get to a specific byte value. Whereas with fixed point, we are limiting users to a fixed amount of precision (if we take solely 0-100, the user can't do any less than 1% of disk size; or if we state the range is 0-100000, where 80123 is 80.123%, then the user still can't get any finer than a megabyte on a multi-gigabyte image). Again, querying the threshold will show the user what the actual value in bytes was computed to be (again allowing for the hypervisor to round to an appropriate granularity if necessary).

But I can convert my code back to taking threshold as ullong, and providing the flag as fixed point rather than floating point for requesting percentages, if that is desired. If so, what fixed point should I pick, a thousandth of a percentage (0-100000)?