Message-ID: <f084e3bc-77af-4268-c882-7b0737e45f3b@grimberg.me>
Date:   Thu, 31 May 2018 11:37:20 +0300
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To:     Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>,
        Ewan Milne <emilne@...hat.com>,
        James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux NVMe Mailinglist <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Martin George <marting@...app.com>,
        John Meneghini <John.Meneghini@...app.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Provide more fine grained control over multipathing


> Wouldn't expect you guys to nurture this 'mpath_personality' knob.  SO
> when features like "dispersed namespaces" land a negative check would
> need to be added in the code to prevent switching from "native".
> 
> And once something like "dispersed namespaces" lands we'd then have to
> see about a more sophisticated switch that operates at a different
> granularity.  Could also be that switching one subsystem that is part of
> "dispersed namespaces" would then cascade to all other associated
> subsystems?  Not that dissimilar from the 3rd patch in this series that
> allows a 'device' switch to be done in terms of the subsystem.

Which I think is broken by allowing to change this personality on the
fly.

> 
> Anyway, I don't know the end from the beginning on something you just
> told me about ;)  But we're all in this together.  And can take it as it
> comes.

I agree but this will be exposed to user-space and we will need to live
with it for a long long time...

> I'm merely trying to bridge the gap from old dm-multipath while
> native NVMe multipath gets its legs.
> 
> In time I really do have aspirations to contribute more to NVMe
> multipathing.  I think Christoph's NVMe multipath implementation of
> bio-based device ontop on NVMe core's blk-mq device(s) is very clever
> and effective (blk_steal_bios() hack and all).

That's great.

>> Don't get me wrong, I do support your cause, and I think nvme should try
>> to help, I just think that subsystem granularity is not the correct
>> approach going forward.
> 
> I understand there will be limits to this 'mpath_personality' knob's
> utility and it'll need to evolve over time.  But the burden of making
> more advanced NVMe multipath features accessible outside of native NVMe
> isn't intended to be on any of the NVMe maintainers (other than maybe
> remembering to disallow the switch where it makes sense in the future).

I would expect that any "advanced multipath features" would be properly
brought up with the NVMe TWG as a ratified standard and find its way
to nvme. So I don't think this particularly is a valid argument.

>> As I said, I've been off the grid, can you remind me why global knob is
>> not sufficient?
> 
> Because once nvme_core.multipath=N is set: native NVMe multipath is then
> not accessible from the same host.  The goal of this patchset is to give
> users choice.  But not limit them to _only_ using dm-multipath if they
> just have some legacy needs.
> 
> Tough to be convincing with hypotheticals but I could imagine a very
> obvious usecase for native NVMe multipathing be PCI-based embedded NVMe
> "fabrics" (especially if/when the numa-based path selector lands).  But
> the same host with PCI NVMe could be connected to a FC network that has
> historically always been managed via dm-multipath.. but say that
> FC-based infrastructure gets updated to use NVMe (to leverage a wider
> NVMe investment, whatever?) -- but maybe admins would still prefer to
> use dm-multipath for the NVMe over FC.

You are referring to an array exposing media via nvmf and scsi
simultaneously? I'm not sure that there is a clean definition of
how that is supposed to work (ANA/ALUA, reservations, etc..)

>> This might sound stupid to you, but can't users that desperately must
>> keep using dm-multipath (for its mature toolset or what-not) just
>> stack it on multipath nvme device? (I might be completely off on
>> this so feel free to correct my ignorance).
> 
> We could certainly pursue adding multipath-tools support for native NVMe
> multipathing.  Not opposed to it (even if just reporting topology and
> state).  But given the extensive lengths NVMe multipath goes to hide
> devices we'd need some way to piercing through the opaque nvme device
> that native NVMe multipath exposes.  But that really is a tangent
> relative to this patchset.  Since that kind of visibility would also
> benefit the nvme cli... otherwise how are users to even be able to trust
> but verify native NVMe multipathing did what it expected it to?

Can you explain what is missing for multipath-tools to resolve topology?

nvme list-subsys is doing just that, doesn't it? It lists subsys-ctrl
topology but that is sort of the important information as controllers
are the real paths.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists