linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] block: Introduce REQ_ALLOCATE flag for REQ_OP_WRITE

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: <67d63190-c16f-cd26-6b67-641c8943dc3d@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:08:58 +0300
From:   Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To:     axboe@...nel.dk
Cc:     martin.petersen@...cle.com, bob.liu@...cle.com,
        darrick.wong@...cle.com, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, song@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
        adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com,
        ming.lei@...hat.com, osandov@...com, jthumshirn@...e.de,
        minwoo.im.dev@...il.com, damien.lemoal@....com,
        andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, hare@...e.com, tj@...nel.org,
        ajay.joshi@....com, sagi@...mberg.me, dsterba@...e.com,
        bvanassche@....org, dhowells@...hat.com, asml.silence@...il.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] block: Introduce REQ_ALLOCATE flag for
 REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES

I just don't understand the reason nothing happens :(
I see newly-sent patches comes fast into block tree.
But there is only silence... I grepped over Documentation,
and there is no special rules about block tree. So,
it looks like standard rules should be applyable.

Some comments? Some requests for reworking? Some personal reasons to ignore my patches?

On 06.03.2020 12:11, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> ping
> 
> On 13.02.2020 10:55, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> Hi, Jens,
>>
>> could you please provide some comments on this? I sent v1 two months ago,
>> and it would be great to know your vision of the functionality and
>> the approach and whether it is going to go to block tree.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kirill
>>
>> On 13.02.2020 10:39, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>> (was "[PATCH block v2 0/3] block: Introduce REQ_NOZERO flag
>>>       for REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES operation";
>>>  was "[PATCH RFC 0/3] block,ext4: Introduce REQ_OP_ASSIGN_RANGE
>>>       to reflect extents allocation in block device internals")
>>>
>>> v7: Two comments changed.
>>>
>>> v6: req_op() cosmetic change.
>>>
>>> v5: Kill dm|md patch, which disables REQ_ALLOCATE for these devices.
>>>     Disable REQ_ALLOCATE for all stacking devices instead of this.
>>>
>>> v4: Correct argument for mddev_check_write_zeroes().
>>>
>>> v3: Rename REQ_NOZERO to REQ_ALLOCATE.
>>>     Split helpers to separate patches.
>>>     Add a patch, disabling max_allocate_sectors inheritance for dm.
>>>
>>> v2: Introduce new flag for REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES instead of
>>>     introduction a new operation as suggested by Martin K. Petersen.
>>>     Removed ext4-related patch to focus on block changes
>>>     for now.
>>>
>>> Information about continuous extent placement may be useful
>>> for some block devices. Say, distributed network filesystems,
>>> which provide block device interface, may use this information
>>> for better blocks placement over the nodes in their cluster,
>>> and for better performance. Block devices, which map a file
>>> on another filesystem (loop), may request the same length extent
>>> on underlining filesystem for less fragmentation and for batching
>>> allocation requests. Also, hypervisors like QEMU may use this
>>> information for optimization of cluster allocations.
>>>
>>> This patchset introduces REQ_ALLOCATE flag for REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES,
>>> which makes a block device to allocate blocks instead of actual
>>> blocks zeroing. This may be used for forwarding user's fallocate(0)
>>> requests into block device internals. E.g., in loop driver this
>>> will result in allocation extents in backing-file, so subsequent
>>> write won't fail by the reason of no available space. Distributed
>>> network filesystems will be able to assign specific servers for
>>> specific extents, so subsequent write will be more efficient.
>>>
>>> Patches [1-3/6] are preparation on helper functions, patch [4/6]
>>> introduces REQ_ALLOCATE flag and implements all the logic,
>>> patch [5/6] adds one more helper, patch [6/6] adds loop
>>> as the first user of the flag.
>>>
>>> Note, that here is only block-related patches, example of usage
>>> for ext4 with a performance numbers may be seen in [1].
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/157599697369.12112.10138136904533871162.stgit@localhost.localdomain/T/#me5bdd5cc313e14de615d81bea214f355ae975db0
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Kirill Tkhai (6):
>>>       block: Add @flags argument to bdev_write_zeroes_sectors()
>>>       block: Pass op_flags into blk_queue_get_max_sectors()
>>>       block: Introduce blk_queue_get_max_write_zeroes_sectors()
>>>       block: Add support for REQ_ALLOCATE flag
>>>       block: Add blk_queue_max_allocate_sectors()
>>>       loop: Add support for REQ_ALLOCATE
>>>
>>>
>>>  block/blk-core.c                    |    6 +++---
>>>  block/blk-lib.c                     |   17 ++++++++++-------
>>>  block/blk-merge.c                   |    9 ++++++---
>>>  block/blk-settings.c                |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>  drivers/block/loop.c                |   20 +++++++++++++-------
>>>  drivers/md/dm-kcopyd.c              |    2 +-
>>>  drivers/target/target_core_iblock.c |    4 ++--
>>>  fs/block_dev.c                      |    4 ++++
>>>  include/linux/blk_types.h           |    6 ++++++
>>>  include/linux/blkdev.h              |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>  10 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Bob Liu <bob.liu@...cle.com>
>>>
>>
>