On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 1:31 PM Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 07 2023 at 7:27P -0400,
> Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 05 2023 at 5:14P -0400,
> > Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 8:57 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We all just need to focus on your
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 04:31:41PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07 2023 at 7:27P -0400,
> Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 05 2023 at 5:14P -0400,
> > Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 8:57 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We all just need to
On Wed, Jun 07 2023 at 7:27P -0400,
Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05 2023 at 5:14P -0400,
> Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 8:57 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > >
> > > We all just need to focus on your proposal and Joe's dm-thin
> > > reservation design...
> > >
> > >
On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 07:50:25PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Do you think you're OK to scope out, and/or implement, the XFS changes
> if you use v7 of this patchset as the starting point? (v8 should just
> be v7 minus the dm-thin.c and dm-snap.c changes). The thinp
> support in v7 will work
On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 10:03:40PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> > Possibly unintentionally, I didn't call it REQ_OP_PROVISION but that's
> > what I intended - the operation does not contain data at all. It's an
> > operation like REQ_OP_DISCARD or REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROS - it
Dave,
> Possibly unintentionally, I didn't call it REQ_OP_PROVISION but that's
> what I intended - the operation does not contain data at all. It's an
> operation like REQ_OP_DISCARD or REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROS - it contains a
> range of sectors that need to be provisioned (or discarded), and
>
On Tue, Jun 06 2023 at 10:01P -0400,
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 11:57:48AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02 2023 at 8:52P -0400,
> > Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > > Mike, I think you might have misunderstood what I have been proposing.
> > > Possibly
On Mon, Jun 05 2023 at 5:14P -0400,
Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 8:57 AM Mike Snitzer 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
> >
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 02:14:44PM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 8:57 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02 2023 at 8:52P -0400,
> > Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:44:27AM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> > > > > The only way to distinquish the
On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 11:57:48AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02 2023 at 8:52P -0400,
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:44:27AM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 8:28 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 30 2023 at
On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 8:57 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 02 2023 at 8:52P -0400,
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:44:27AM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 8:28 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 30 2023 at 10:55P -0400,
On Fri, Jun 02 2023 at 8:52P -0400,
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:44:27AM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 8:28 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 30 2023 at 10:55P -0400,
> > > Joe Thornber wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:44:27AM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 8:28 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 30 2023 at 10:55P -0400,
> > Joe Thornber wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 3:02 PM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also Joe, for you
On Fri, Jun 02 2023 at 2:44P -0400,
Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 8:28 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 30 2023 at 10:55P -0400,
> > Joe Thornber wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 3:02 PM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also Joe, for you proposed
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 8:28 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30 2023 at 10:55P -0400,
> Joe Thornber wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 3:02 PM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Also Joe, for you proposed dm-thinp design where you distinquish
> > > between "provision" and "reserve":
On Tue, May 30 2023 at 10:55P -0400,
Joe Thornber wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 3:02 PM Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> >
> > Also Joe, for you proposed dm-thinp design where you distinquish
> > between "provision" and "reserve": Would it make sense for REQ_META
> > (e.g. all XFS metadata) with
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 3:02 PM Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> Also Joe, for you proposed dm-thinp design where you distinquish
> between "provision" and "reserve": Would it make sense for REQ_META
> (e.g. all XFS metadata) with REQ_PROVISION to be treated as an
> LBA-specific hard request? Whereas
On Tue, May 30 2023 at 3:27P -0400,
Joe Thornber wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:45 AM Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:04:02PM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote:
> >
> > > 1) We have an api (ioctl, bio flag, whatever) that lets you
> > > reserve/guarantee a region:
> > >
> >
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:45 AM Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:04:02PM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote:
>
> > 1) We have an api (ioctl, bio flag, whatever) that lets you
> > reserve/guarantee a region:
> >
> > int reserve_region(dev, sector_t begin, sector_t end);
>
> A C-based
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:04:02PM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote:
> Here's my take:
>
> I don't see why the filesystem cares if thinp is doing a reservation or
> provisioning under the hood. All that matters is that a future write
> to that region will be honoured (barring device failure etc.).
>
>
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 07:35:14PM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 6:36 PM Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 03:47:21PM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 9:00 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 25 2023 at 7:39P -0400,
>
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 07:37:43PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 12:19:47PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 10:40:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:26:18AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 23 2023 at 10:05P
Here's my take:
I don't see why the filesystem cares if thinp is doing a reservation or
provisioning under the hood. All that matters is that a future write
to that region will be honoured (barring device failure etc.).
I agree that the reservation/force mapped status needs to be inherited
by
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 12:19:47PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 10:40:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:26:18AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 23 2023 at 10:05P -0400, Brian Foster
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 6:36 PM Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 03:47:21PM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 9:00 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25 2023 at 7:39P -0400,
> > > Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 04:02:49PM -0400,
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 03:47:21PM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 9:00 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25 2023 at 7:39P -0400,
> > Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 04:02:49PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 23 2023 at 8:40P -0400,
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 9:00 AM Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25 2023 at 7:39P -0400,
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 04:02:49PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 23 2023 at 8:40P -0400,
> > > Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 10:40:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:26:18AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Tue, May 23 2023 at 10:05P -0400, Brian Foster
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 02:27:57PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > ... since I also happen to
On Thu, May 25 2023 at 7:39P -0400,
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 04:02:49PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Tue, May 23 2023 at 8:40P -0400,
> > Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:26:18AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 23 2023 at
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 04:02:49PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, May 23 2023 at 8:40P -0400,
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:26:18AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 23 2023 at 10:05P -0400, Brian Foster
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at
On Tue, May 23 2023 at 8:40P -0400,
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:26:18AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Tue, May 23 2023 at 10:05P -0400, Brian Foster
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 02:27:57PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > ... since I also happen to think
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:26:18AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, May 23 2023 at 10:05P -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 02:27:57PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > ... since I also happen to think there is a potentially interesting
> > development path to make this sort
On Tue, May 23 2023 at 10:05P -0400,
Brian Foster wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 02:27:57PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19 2023 at 7:07P -0400,
> > Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
...
> > > e.g. If the device takes a snapshot, it needs to reprovision the
> > > potential COW ranges
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 02:27:57PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, May 19 2023 at 7:07P -0400,
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:41:31AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 19 2023 at 12:09P -0400,
> > > Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >
> > > > FYI, I really
On Fri, May 19 2023 at 7:07P -0400,
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:41:31AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19 2023 at 12:09P -0400,
> > Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > > FYI, I really don't think this primitive is a good idea. In the
> > > concept of
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:41:31AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, May 19 2023 at 12:09P -0400,
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > FYI, I really don't think this primitive is a good idea. In the
> > concept of non-overwritable storage (NAND, SMR drives) the entire
> > concept of a one-shoot
On Fri, May 19 2023 at 12:09P -0400,
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> FYI, I really don't think this primitive is a good idea. In the
> concept of non-overwritable storage (NAND, SMR drives) the entire
> concept of a one-shoot 'provisioning' that will guarantee later writes
> are always possible is
FYI, I really don't think this primitive is a good idea. In the
concept of non-overwritable storage (NAND, SMR drives) the entire
concept of a one-shoot 'provisioning' that will guarantee later writes
are always possible is simply bogus.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
38 matches
Mail list logo
