linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] BTRFS hot relocation support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130529003815.GE2291@google.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 May 2013 17:38:15 -0700
From:	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
To:	Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@....net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] BTRFS hot relocation support

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 02:22:34AM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> zwu.kernel posted on Mon, 20 May 2013 23:11:22 +0800 as excerpted:
> 
> > The patchset is trying to introduce hot relocation support
> > for BTRFS. In hybrid storage environment, when the data in rotating disk
> > get hot, it can be relocated to nonrotating disk by BTRFS hot relocation
> > support automatically; also, if nonrotating disk ratio exceed its upper
> > threshold, the data which get cold can be looked up and relocated to
> > rotating disk to make more space in nonrotating disk at first, and then
> > the data which get hot will be relocated to nonrotating disk
> > automatically.
> 
> One advantage of a filesystem implementation, as opposed to bcache or 
> dmcache, is arguably a corner-case, but it's /my/ corner-case, so...
> 
> I run an intr*-less (I guess technically, empty initramfs) monolithic-
> kernel boot, using the kernel commandline root= and (formerly) md= and 
> related logic to choose/assemble/mount root directly from the kernel 
> command line via bootloader (grub2).  Thus, any user-space-required-to-
> mount-root is out, since I don't have an initr* and thus no early 
> userspace.  That means both lvm2 and dmcache (AFAIK) are out.  I'm not 
> sure about bcache, but it has other negatives, particularly against btrfs-
> raid-1 and I'd guess md/raid-1 as well.
> 
> Much like md before it, btrfs, while normally requiring the user-space-
> required device-scan to properly handle multiple devices, has kernel-
> command-line options that allow direct kernel multi-device assembly 
> without the help of early-userspace/initr*.

I wouldn't be averse to adding such functionality to bcache, provided it
could be done reasonably cleanly/sensibly. It's not high on my list but
I'd accept patches :)
--
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/