[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIESXNF5anyvJEjm@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 19:27:24 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>
To: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@...omium.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Joe Thornber <thornber@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@...gle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joe Thornber <ejt@...hat.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Introduce provisioning primitives
On Mon, Jun 05 2023 at 5:14P -0400,
Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 8:57 AM Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > We all just need to focus on your proposal and Joe's dm-thin
> > reservation design...
> >
> > [Sarthak: FYI, this implies that it doesn't really make sense to add
> > dm-thinp support before Joe's design is implemented. Otherwise we'll
> > have 2 different responses to REQ_OP_PROVISION. The one that is
> > captured in your patchset isn't adequate to properly handle ensuring
> > upper layer (like XFS) can depend on the space being available across
> > snapshot boundaries.]
> >
> Ack. Would it be premature for the rest of the series to go through
> (REQ_OP_PROVISION + support for loop and non-dm-thinp device-mapper
> targets)? I'd like to start using this as a reference to suggest
> additions to the virtio-spec for virtio-blk support and start looking
> at what an ext4 implementation would look like.
Please drop the dm-thin.c and dm-snap.c changes. dm-snap.c would need
more work to provide the type of guarantee XFS requires across
snapshot boundaries. I'm inclined to _not_ add dm-snap.c support
because it is best to just use dm-thin.
And FYI even your dm-thin patch will be the starting point for the
dm-thin support (we'll keep attribution to you for all the code in a
separate patch).
> Fair points, I certainly don't want to derail this conversation; I'd
> be happy to see this work merged sooner rather than later.
Once those dm target changes are dropped I think the rest of the
series is fine to go upstream now. Feel free to post a v8.
> For posterity, I'll distill what I said above into the following: I'd like
> a capability for userspace to create thin snapshots that ignore the
> thin volume's provisioned areas. IOW, an opt-in flag which makes
> snapshots fallback to what they do today to provide flexibility to
> userspace to decide the space requirements for the above mentioned
> scenarios, and at the same time, not adding separate corner case
> handling for filesystems. But to reiterate, my intent isn't to pile
> this onto the work you, Mike and Joe have planned; just some insight
> into why I'm in favor of ideas that reduce the snapshot size.
I think it'd be useful to ignore a thin device's reservation for
read-only snapshots. Adding the ability to create read-only thin
snapshots could make sense (later activations don't necessarily need
to impose read-only, doing so would require some additional work).
Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists