Date:	Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:52:50 +0200
From:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@...erlog.com>,
	Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] tcm: Unify UNMAP and WRITE_SAME w/ UNMAP=1 subsystem
 plugin handling

On 10/13/2010 08:03 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:56:08PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
>>> The parsing of the WRITE SAME and UNMAP CDBs is something the generic
>>> CDB parsing code should do,
>>
>> Ok, so you are thinking about a seperate transport_emulate_write_same()
>> and transport_emulate_unmap() called from
>> transport_emulate_control_cdb(), right..?
> 
> More or less yes.
> 
>>>  and just give a range of lists of lba/len
>>> pairs to the ->discard method in the backed.
>>
>> Yes, these are already available from the passed struct
>> se_task->task_lba and ->task_size values.
> 
> Not for UNMAP.  WRITE SAME in it's various incarnations uses the
> standard LBA/LEN encoding and you seem to parse it nicely.  But for
> UNMAP the lba/len pairs are in the command payload.  To support things
> genericly you'd need a standard way to pass them.  If you want to
> limit yourself to one lba/len pair for one the scheme could work,
> though.
> 
>> Yes, so the problem of trying to make this code generic (eg: outside of
>> TCM subsystem plugins) is that blk_issue_discard() takes struct
>> block_device, which means we the subsystem plugin has to locate struct
>> block_device inside of non generic cide.
> 
> blk_issue_discard is in no way generic.  It's 100% iblock code and
> really doesn't belong into any other backend.  And btw,
> blk_issue_discard is rather suboptimal even in iblock - it's a
> synchronous function that will stall progress of the thread handling it.
> If you want better performance you'll need to opencode the content of
> it to allow an asynchronous completion handler.  But given that discard
> isn't really a critical feature at this point this could easily be
> left for later with a comment.
> 
>> So, then the main issue becomes FILEIO + block level discard and how to
>> issue an blk_issue_discard() from struct fileio in the most sane way.
>> If there is no sane way then I will just drop this bit, or just do the
>> file level 'hole punch' that you are speaking about.
> 
> Right now there is no good way to do a block device discard or file
> hole punch at the level where the file backend operates.
> 

Nick why don't you let User-mode (With configfs everything is user mode
right?) look into the file set for FILEIO and if found to be a block
device then set iblock instead. Then you can surly assume in FILEIO that
you only have FS files at hand.

Christoph.
has xfs an IOCTL to punch holes in files? would it be desirable to make
that generic with a ->punch() vectror FS(s) can implement. It's the 3rd
project that's looking for a generic punch().

Thanks
Boaz 
--
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