Message-Id: <1230739053.3408.74.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:57:32 +0000
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, avishay@...il.com,
	jeff@...zik.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, osd-dev@...n-osd.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] exofs: mkexofs

On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 17:19 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:33:48 +0200
> > Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> We need a mechanism to prepare the file system (mkfs).
> >> I chose to implement that by means of a couple of
> >> mount-options. Because there is no user-mode API for committing
> >> OSD commands. And also, all this stuff is highly internal to
> >> the file system itself.
> >>
> >> - Added two mount options mkfs=0/1,format=capacity_in_meg, so mkfs/format
> >>   can be executed by kernel code just before mount. An mkexofs utility
> >>   can now be implemented by means of a script that mounts and unmount the
> >>   file system with proper options.
> > 
> > Doing mkfs in-kernel is unusual.  I don't think the above description
> > sufficiently helps the uninitiated understand why mkfs cannot be done
> > in userspace as usual.  Please flesh it out a bit.
> 
> There are a few main reasons.
> - There is no user-mode API for initiating OSD commands. Such a subsystem
>   would be hundredfold bigger then the mkfs code submitted. I think it would be
>   hard and stupid to maintain a complex user-mode API just for creating
>   a couple of objects and writing a couple of on disk structures.

This is really a reflection of the whole problem with the OSD paradigm.

In theory, a filesystem on OSD is a thin layer of metadata mapping
objects to files.  Get this right and the storage will manage things,
like security and access and attributes (there's even a natural mapping
to the VFS concept of extended attributes).  Plus, the storage has
enough information to manage persistence, backups and replication.

The real problem is that no-one has actually managed to come up with a
useful VFS<->OSD mapping layer (even by extending or altering the VFS).
Every filesystem that currently uses OSD has a separate direct OSD
speaking interface (i.e. it slices out the block layer to do this and
talks directly to the storage).

I suppose this could be taken to show that such a layer is impossibly
complex, as you assert, but its lack is reflected in strange looking
design decisions like in-kernel mkfs.  It would also mean that there
would be very little layered code sharing between ODS based filesystems.

> - I intend to refactor the code further to make use of more super.c services,
>   so to make this addition even smaller. Also future direction of raid over
>   multiple objects will make even more kernel infrastructure needed which
>   will need even more user-mode code duplication.
> - I anticipate problems that are not yet addressed in this body of work
>   but will be in the future, mainly that a single OSD-target (lun) can
>   be shared by lots of FSs, and a single FS can span many OSD-targets.
>   Some central management is much easier to do in Kernel.
> 
> > 
> > What are the dependencies for this filesystem code?  I assume that it
> > depends on various block- and scsi-level patches?  Which ones, and
> > what is their status, and is this code even compileable without them?
> > 
> 
> This OSD-based file system is dependent on the open-osd initiator library
> code that I've submitted for inclusion for 2.6.29. It has been sitting
> in linux-next for a while now, and has not been receiving any comments
> for the last two updated patchsets I've sent to scsi-misc/lkml. However
> it has not yet been submitted into Jame's scsi-misc git tree, and James
> is the ultimate maintainer that should submit this work. I hope it will
> still be submitted into 2.6.29, as this code is totally self sufficient
> and does not endangers or changes any other Kernel subsystems.
> (All the needed ground work was already submitted to Linus since 2.6.26)
> So why should it not?

I don't like it mainly because it's not truly a useful general framework
for others to build on.  However, as argued above, there might not
actually be such a useful framework, so as long as the only two
consumers (you and Lustre) want an interface like this, I'll put it in.

James


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists