[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200814081411.GA16943@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 09:14:11 +0100
From: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>
To: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>
Cc: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
Kanchan Joshi <joshiiitr@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"bcrl@...ck.org" <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
"io-uring@...r.kernel.org" <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
SelvaKumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>,
Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>,
Naohiro Aota <Naohiro.Aota@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] io_uring: add support for zone-append
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 07:35:28AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > the write pointer. The only interesting addition is that we also want
> > to report where we wrote. So I'd rather have RWF_REPORT_OFFSET or so.
>
> That works for me. But that rules out having the same interface for raw block
> devices since O_APPEND has no meaning in that case. So for raw block devices, it
> will have to be through zonefs. That works for me, and I think it was your idea
> all along. Can you confirm please ?
Yes. I don't think think raw syscall level access to the zone append
primitive makes sense. Either use zonefs for a file-like API, or
use the NVMe pass through interface for 100% raw access.
> > - take the exclusive per-inode (zone) lock and just issue either normal
> > writes or zone append at your choice, relying on the lock to
> > serialize other writers. For the async case this means we need a
> > lock than can be release in a different context than it was acquired,
> > which is a little ugly but can be done.
>
> Yes, that would be possible. But likely, this will also need calls to
> inode_dio_wait() to avoid ending up with a mix of regular write and zone append
> writes in flight (which likely would result in the regular write failing as the
> zone append writes would go straight to the device without waiting for the zone
> write lock like regular writes do).
inode_dio_wait is a really bad implementation of almost a lock. I've
started some work that I need to finish to just replace it with proper
non-owner rwsems (or even the range locks Dave has been looking into).
>
> This all sound sensible to me. One last point though, specific to zonefs: if the
> user opens a zone file with O_APPEND, I do want to have that necessarily mean
> "use zone append". And same for the "RWF_REPORT_OFFSET". The point here is that
> both O_APPEND and RWF_REPORT_OFFSET can be used with both regular writes and
> zone append writes, but none of them actually clearly specify if the
> application/user tolerates writing data to disk in a different order than the
> issuing order... So another flag to indicate "atomic out-of-order writes" (==
> zone append) ?
O_APPEND pretty much implies out of order, as there is no way for an
application to know which thread wins the race to write the next chunk.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists