[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201022094402.GA21466@veeam.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 12:44:02 +0300
From: Sergei Shtepa <sergei.shtepa@...am.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
CC: "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"darrick.wong@...cle.com" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
"linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"len.brown@...el.com" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"johannes.thumshirn@....com" <johannes.thumshirn@....com>,
"ming.lei@...hat.com" <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
"jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>, "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"gustavo@...eddedor.com" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
"bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>,
"osandov@...com" <osandov@...com>,
"koct9i@...il.com" <koct9i@...il.com>,
"damien.lemoal@....com" <damien.lemoal@....com>,
"steve@....org" <steve@....org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] block layer filter and block device snapshot module
The 10/22/2020 08:58, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 10/21/20 4:10 PM, Sergei Shtepa wrote:
> > The 10/21/2020 16:31, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >> I do understand where you are coming from, but then we already have a
> >> dm-snap which does exactly what you want to achieve.
> >> Of course, that would require a reconfiguration of the storage stack on
> >> the machine, which is not always possible (or desired).
> >
> > Yes, reconfiguring the storage stack on a machine is almost impossible.
> >
> >>
> >> What I _could_ imagine would be a 'dm-intercept' thingie, which
> >> redirects the current submit_bio() function for any block device, and
> >> re-routes that to a linear device-mapper device pointing back to the
> >> original block device.
> >>
> >> That way you could attach it to basically any block device, _and_ can
> >> use the existing device-mapper functionality to do fancy stuff once the
> >> submit_io() callback has been re-routed.
> >>
> >> And it also would help in other scenarios, too; with such a
> >> functionality we could seamlessly clone devices without having to move
> >> the whole setup to device-mapper first.
> >
> > Hm...
> > Did I understand correctly that the filter itself can be left approximately
> > as it is, but the blk-snap module can be replaced with 'dm-intercept',
> > which would use the re-route mechanism from the dm?
> > I think I may be able to implement it, if you describe your idea in more
> > detail.
> >
> >
> Actually, once we have an dm-intercept, why do you need the block-layer
> filter at all?
> From you initial description the block-layer filter was implemented
> such that blk-snap could work; but if we have dm-intercept (and with it
> the ability to use device-mapper functionality even for normal block
> devices) there wouldn't be any need for the block-layer filter, no?
Maybe, but the problem is that I can't imagine how to implement
dm-intercept yet.
How to use dm to implement interception without changing the stack
of block devices. We'll have to make a hook somewhere, isn`t it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hannes
> --
> Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
> hare@...e.de +49 911 74053 688
> SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
> HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
--
Sergei Shtepa
Veeam Software developer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists