[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200710130912.GA7491@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:09:12 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Kanchan Joshi <joshiiitr@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
bcrl@...ck.org, Damien.LeMoal@....com, asml.silence@...il.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Matias Bj??rling <mb@...htnvm.io>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Selvakumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>,
Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] io_uring: add support for zone-append
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:50:27PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> It might, if you have IRQ context for the completion. task_work isn't
> expensive, however. It's not like a thread offload.
>
> > Using flags have not been liked here, but given the upheaval involved so
> > far I have begun to feel - it was keeping things simple. Should it be
> > reconsidered?
>
> It's definitely worth considering, especially since we can use cflags
> like Pavel suggested upfront and not need any extra storage. But it
> brings us back to the 32-bit vs 64-bit discussion, and then using blocks
> instead of bytes. Which isn't exactly super pretty.
block doesn't work for the case of writes to files that don't have
to be aligned in any way. And that I think is the more broadly
applicable use case than zone append on block devices.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists