Re: [dm-devel] Please further explain Linux's "zoned storage" roadmap [was: Re: [PATCH v14 00/13] support zoned block devices with non-power-of-2 zone sizes]

2022-09-21 Thread Damien Le Moal
On 9/22/22 02:27, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20 2022 at 5:11P -0400, > Pankaj Raghav wrote: > >> - Background and Motivation: >> >> The zone storage implementation in Linux, introduced since v4.10, first >> targetted SMR drives which have a power of 2 (po2) zone size alignment >> requirem

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v14 13/13] dm: add power-of-2 target for zoned devices with non power-of-2 zone sizes

2022-09-21 Thread Pankaj Raghav
>> +/* >> + * This target works on the complete zoned device. Partial mapping is not >> + * supported. >> + * Construct a zoned po2 logical device: >> + */ >> +static int dm_po2z_ctr(struct dm_target *ti, unsigned int argc, char **argv) >> +{ >> +struct dm_po2z_target *dmh = NULL; >> +int

[dm-devel] Please further explain Linux's "zoned storage" roadmap [was: Re: [PATCH v14 00/13] support zoned block devices with non-power-of-2 zone sizes]

2022-09-21 Thread Mike Snitzer
On Tue, Sep 20 2022 at 5:11P -0400, Pankaj Raghav wrote: > - Background and Motivation: > > The zone storage implementation in Linux, introduced since v4.10, first > targetted SMR drives which have a power of 2 (po2) zone size alignment > requirement. The po2 zone size was further imposed impli

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v14 13/13] dm: add power-of-2 target for zoned devices with non power-of-2 zone sizes

2022-09-21 Thread Mike Snitzer
On Tue, Sep 20 2022 at 5:11P -0400, Pankaj Raghav wrote: > Only zoned devices with power-of-2(po2) number of sectors per zone(zone > size) were supported in linux but now non power-of-2(npo2) zone sizes > support has been added to the block layer. > > Filesystems such as F2FS and btrfs have sup

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH RFC 4/8] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_PROVISION

2022-09-21 Thread Brian Foster
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 02:02:31PM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 4:56 AM Brian Foster wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:48:22AM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > > From: Sarthak Kukreti > > > > > > FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that > >

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH RFC 4/8] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_PROVISION

2022-09-21 Thread Mike Snitzer
On Wed, Sep 21 2022 at 1:54P -0400, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 12:49 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:48:22AM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > > From: Sarthak Kukreti > > > > > > FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/8] Introduce provisioning primitives for thinly provisioned storage

2022-09-21 Thread Mike Snitzer
On Tue, Sep 20 2022 at 5:48P -0400, Daniil Lunev wrote: > > There is no such thing as WRITE UNAVAILABLE in NVMe. > Apologize, that is WRITE UNCORRECTABLE. Chapter 3.2.7 of > NVM Express NVM Command Set Specification 1.0b > > > That being siad you still haven't actually explained what problem >

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2 0/4] brd: implement discard

2022-09-21 Thread Gao Xiang
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 01:52:38PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > Hi > > Here I'm sending second version of the brd discard patches. That is quite interesting. btw, something out of topic, I once had some preliminary attempt to add DAX support to brd since brd works as ramdisk and brd-dax could

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH RFC 4/8] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_PROVISION

2022-09-21 Thread Sarthak Kukreti
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 12:49 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:48:22AM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > From: Sarthak Kukreti > > > > FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that > > sends a hint to (supported) thinly provisioned block devices to > > al

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/8] Introduce provisioning primitives for thinly provisioned storage

2022-09-21 Thread Daniil Lunev
> There is no such thing as WRITE UNAVAILABLE in NVMe. Apologize, that is WRITE UNCORRECTABLE. Chapter 3.2.7 of NVM Express NVM Command Set Specification 1.0b > That being siad you still haven't actually explained what problem > you're even trying to solve. The specific problem is the following:

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/8] Introduce provisioning primitives for thinly provisioned storage

2022-09-21 Thread Daniil Lunev
> So bloody punich the vendors for it. Unlike most of the Linux community > your actually have purchasing power and you'd help everyone by making > use of that instead adding hacks to upstream. Hi Cristoph, I just want to note that the primitive this patchset introduces would not map to WRITE ZER