[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIOMLfMjugGf4C2T@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 16:31:41 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
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 Wed, Jun 07 2023 at 7:27P -0400,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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.
FYI, I've made my latest code available in this
'dm-6.5-provision-support' branch (based on 'dm-6.5'):
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/log/?h=dm-6.5-provision-support
It's what v8 should be plus the 2 dm-thin patches (that I don't think
should go upstream yet, but are theoretically useful for Dave and
Joe).
The "dm thin: complete interface for REQ_OP_PROVISION support" commit
establishes all the dm-thin interface I think is needed. The FIXME in
process_provision_bio() (and the patch header) cautions against upper
layers like XFS using this dm-thinp support quite yet.
Otherwise we'll have the issue where dm-thinp's REQ_OP_PROVISION
support initially doesn't provide the guarantee that XFS needs across
snapshots (which is: snapshots inherit all previous REQ_OP_PROVISION).
Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists