RE: [LSF/MM TOPIC] status update on stream IDs

2017-01-06 Thread Changho Choi
Hi Andreas, Thanks for the heads up! There has been big progress on it. It was ratified as a NVMe 1.3 standard in Oct 31st, 2016 in NVMe org(As you may already understand it was ratified as SCSI standard in T10 in May, 2015). The standard compliant product is available for NVMe and SAS in the

[RFC PATCH v2 1/2] block: fix lifetime of request_queue / backing_dev_info relative to bdev

2017-01-06 Thread Dan Williams
By definition the lifetime of a struct block_device is equal to the lifetime of its corresponding inode since they both live in struct bdev_inode. Up until the inode is destroyed it may be the target of delayed write-back requests. Issuing write-back to a block_device requires a lookup of the bdev

[RFC PATCH v2 2/2] block: fix blk_get_backing_dev_info() crash, use bdev->bd_queue

2017-01-06 Thread Dan Williams
The ->bd_queue member of struct block_device was added in commit 87192a2a49c4 ("vfs: cache request_queue in struct block_device") in v3.3. However, blk_get_backing_dev_info() has been using bdev_get_queue() and grabbing the request_queue through the gendisk since before the git era. At final

[RFC PATCH v2 0/2] block: fix backing_dev_info lifetime

2017-01-06 Thread Dan Williams
v1 of these changes [1] was a one line change to bdev_get_queue() to prevent a shutdown crash when del_gendisk() races the final __blkdev_put(). While it is known at del_gendisk() time that the queue is still alive, Jan Kara points to other paths [2] that are racing __blkdev_put() where the

Re: [LSF/MM ATTEND AND AGENDA TOPIC] request to attend the summit

2017-01-06 Thread Adam Manzanares
The 01/02/2017 19:14, Paolo Valente wrote: > Hi, > this is to retry to request to attend the summit. This time I'm > trying to propose and agenda topic too. > > I would like to attend, and propose a topic, because: > 1) the project for adding (only) the BFQ I/O scheduler to blk-mq has > entered

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC][LSF/MM ATTEND] OCSSDs - SMR, Hierarchical Interface, and Vector I/Os

2017-01-06 Thread Matias Bjørling
On 01/06/2017 02:09 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hello, > > On 01/04, Damien Le Moal wrote: > > ... >> >>> Finally, if I really like to develop SMR- or NAND flash oriented file >>> system then I would like to play with peculiarities of concrete >>> technologies. And any unified interface will

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC][LSF/MM ATTEND] OCSSDs - SMR, Hierarchical Interface, and Vector I/Os

2017-01-06 Thread Matias Bjørling
On 01/05/2017 11:58 PM, Slava Dubeyko wrote: > Next point is read disturbance. If BER of physical page/block achieves some > threshold then > we need to move data from one page/block into another one. What subsystem > will be > responsible for this activity? The drive-managed case expects that