[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231109154619.GA3491@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 16:46:19 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
kbusch@...nel.org, sagi@...mberg.me, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
chandan.babu@...cle.com, dchinner@...hat.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Alan Adamson <alan.adamson@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/21] nvme: Support atomic writes
On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 03:42:40PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> That wasn't the model we had in mind. In our thinking, it was fine to
> send a write that crossed the atomic write limit, but the drive wouldn't
> guarantee that it was atomic except at the atomic write boundary.
> Eg with an AWUN of 16kB, you could send five 16kB writes, combine them
> into a single 80kB write, and if the power failed midway through, the
> drive would guarantee that it had written 0, 16kB, 32kB, 48kB, 64kB or
> all 80kB. Not necessarily in order; it might have written bytes 16-32kB,
> 64-80kB and not the other three.
I can see some use for that, but I'm really worried that debugging
problems in the I/O merging and splitting will be absolute hell.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists