Message-ID: <7118c684-db9d-4bf1-a8dc-48c4cf698eba@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 20:35:49 +0800
From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-block@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 john.g.garry@...cle.com, bmarzins@...hat.com, chaitanyak@...dia.com,
 shinichiro.kawasaki@....com, brauner@...nel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
 chengzhihao1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 07/11] fs: statx add write zeroes unmap attribute

On 2025/5/9 4:24, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 08:17:14PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>> On 2025/5/8 13:01, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My idea is not to strictly limiting the use of FALLOC_FL_WRITE_ZEROES to
>>>> only bdev or files where bdev_unmap_write_zeroes() returns true. In
>>>> other words, STATX_ATTR_WRITE_ZEROES_UNMAP and FALLOC_FL_WRITE_ZEROES
>>>> are not consistent, they are two independent features. Even if some
>>>> devices STATX_ATTR_WRITE_ZEROES_UNMAP are not set, users should still be
>>>> allowed to call fallcoate(FALLOC_FL_WRITE_ZEROES). This is because some
>>>> devices and drivers currently cannot reliably ascertain whether they
>>>> support the unmap write zero command; however, certain devices, such as
>>>> specific cloud storage devices, do support it. Users of these devices
>>>> may also wish to use FALLOC_FL_WRITE_ZEROES to expedite the zeroing
>>>> process.
>>>
>>> What are those "cloud storage devices" where you set it reliably,
>>> i.e.g what drivers?
>>
>> I don't have these 'cloud storage devices' now, but Ted had mentioned
>> those cloud-emulated block devices such as Google's Persistent Desk or
>> Amazon's Elastic Block Device in. I'm not sure if they can accurately
>> report the BLK_FEAT_WRITE_ZEROES_UNMAP feature, maybe Ted can give more
>> details.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20250106161732.GG1284777@mit.edu/
> 
> There's nothing really exotic about what I was referring to in terms
> of "cloud storage devices".  Perhaps a better way of describing them
> is to consider devices such as dm-thin, or a Ceph Block Device, which
> is being exposed as a SCSI or NVME device.

OK, then correctly reporting the BLK_FEAT_WRITE_ZEROES_UNMAP feature
should no longer be a major problem. It seems that we do not need to
pay much attention to enabling this feature manually.

> 
> The distinction I was trying to make is performance-related.  Suppose
> you call WRITE_ZEROS on a 14TB region.  After the WRITES_ZEROS
> complete, a read anywhere on that 14TB region will return zeros.
> That's easy.  But the question is when you call WRITE_ZEROS, will the
> storage device (a) go away for a day or more before it completes (which
> would be the case if it is a traditional spinning rust platter), or
> (b) will it be basically instaneous, because all dm-thin or a Ceph Block
> Device needs to do is to delete one or more entries in its mapping
> table.

Yes.

> 
> The problem is two-fold.  First, there's no way for the kernel to know
> whether a storage device will behave as (a) or (b), because SCSI and
> other storage specifications say that performance is out of scope.
> They only talk about the functional results (afterwards, if yout try
> to read from the region, you will get zeros), and are utterly silent
> about how long it migt take.  The second problem is that if you are an
> application program, there is no way you will be willing to call
> fallocate(WRITE_ZEROS, 14TB) if you don't know whether the disk will
> go away for a day or whether it will be instaneous.
> 
> But because there is no way for the kernel to know whether WRITE_ZEROS
> will be fast or not, how would you expect the kernel to expose
> STATX_ATTR_WRITE_ZEROES_UNMAP?  Cristoph's formulation "breaking the
> abstraction" perfectly encapsulate the SCSI specification's position
> on the matter, and I agree it's a valid position.  It's just not
> terribly useful for the application programmer.

Yes.

> 
> Things which some programs/users might want to know or rely upon, but which is normally quite impossible are: 
> 
> * Will the write zero / discard operation take a "reasonable" amount
>   of time?  (Yes, not necessarilly well defined, but we know it when
>   we see it, and hours or days is generally not reasonable.)
> 
> * Is the operation reliable --- i.e., is the device allowed to
>   randomly decide that it won't actually zero the requested blocks (as
>   is the case of discard) whenever it feels like it.
> 
> * Is the operation guaranteed to make the data irretreviable even in
>   face of an attacker with low-level access to the device.  (And this
>   is also not necessarily well defined; does the attacker have access
>   to a scanning electronic microscope, or can do a liquid nitrogen
>   destructive access of the flash device?)

Yes.

> 
> The UFS (Universal Flash Storage) spec comes the closest to providing
> commands that distinguish between these various cases, but for most
> storage specifications, like SCSI, it is absolutely requires peaking
> behind the abstraction barrier defined by the specification, and so
> ultimately, the kernel can't know.
> 
> About the best you can do is to require manual configuration; perhaps a
> config file at the database or userspace cluster file system level
> because the system adminsitrator knows --- maybe because the hyperscale
> cloud provider has leaned on the storage vendor to tell them under
> NDA, storage specs be damned or they won't spend $$$ millions with
> that storage vendor ---  or because the database administrator discovers
> that using fallocate(WRITE_ZEROS) causes performance to tank, so they
> manually disable the use of WRITE_ZEROS.

Yes, this is indeed what we should consider.

> 
> Could this be done in the kernel?  Sure.  We could have a file, say,
> /sys/block/sdXX/queue/write_zeros where the write_zeros file is
> writeable, and so the administrator can force-disable WRITES_ZERO by
> writing 0 into the file.  And could this be queried via a STATX
> attribute?  I suppose, although to be honest, I'm used to doing this
> by looking at the sysfs files.  For example, just recently I coded up
> the following:
> 
> static int is_rotational (const char *device_name EXT2FS_ATTR((unused)))
> {
> 	int		rotational = -1;
> #ifdef __linux__
> 	char		path[1024];
> 	struct stat	st;
> 	FILE		*f;
> 
> 	if ((stat(device_name, &st) < 0) || !S_ISBLK(st.st_mode))
> 		return -1;
> 
> 	snprintf(path, sizeof(path), "/sys/dev/block/%d:%d/queue/rotational",
> 		major(st.st_rdev), minor(st.st_rdev));
> 	f = fopen(path, "r");
> 	if (!f) {
> 		snprintf(path, sizeof(path),
> 			"/sys/dev/block/%d:%d/../queue/rotational",
> 			major(st.st_rdev), minor(st.st_rdev));
> 		f = fopen(path, "r");
> 	}
> 	if (f) {
> 		if (fscanf(f, "%d", &rotational) != 1)
> 			rotational = -1;
> 		fclose(f);
> 	}
> #endif
> 	return rotational;
> }
> 
> Easy-peasy!   Who needs statx?   :-)
> 

Yes. as I replied earlier, I'm going to implement this with a new flag,
BLK_FALG_WRITE_ZEROES_UNMAP_DISABLED, similar to the existing
BLK_FLAG_WRITE_CACHE_DISABLED. Make
/sys/block/<disk>/queue/write_zeroes_unmap to read-write. Regarding
whether to rename it to 'write_zeroes', I need to reconsider, as the
naming aligns perfectly with FALLOC_FL_WRITE_ZEROES, but the **UNMAP**
semantics cannot be adequately expressed.

Thank you for your detailed explanation and suggestions!

Best regards.
Yi.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists