Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 4/4] nbd: add a nbd-control interface

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 04:56:52PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > This patch mirrors the loop back device behavior with a few changes. First > there is no DEL operation as NBD doesn't get as much churn as loop devices do. > Secondly the GET_NEXT operation can optionally create a new NBD device or

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 4/4] nbd: add a nbd-control interface

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 08:11:52AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:52:42AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > > I explained it in the changelog and my response to Wouter. NBD preallocates > > all of its /dev/nbd# devices at modprobe time, so there's no way to add new > > devices as we

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 4/4] nbd: add a nbd-control interface

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:48:27PM +, Alex Gartrell wrote: > On 1/25/17, 6:23 AM, "arndbergm...@gmail.com on behalf of Arnd Bergmann" > wrote: > > We have multiple established ways to deal with this kind of problem, the > > most > > common

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] nbd: set the logical and physical blocksize properly

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 04:47:42PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 21:07 +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > > > > On 10 Feb 2017, at 19:06, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > > > We noticed when trying to do O_DIRECT to an export on the server > > > side > > > that we were

Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:20:08AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:01:59PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Yes. There was some discussion on that part, and we decided that setting > > the flag doesn't hurt, but the spec also clarifies that using it o

Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:44:29PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > On 15 Sep 2016, at 13:41, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:39:11PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > >> That's probably right in the case of file-based back ends that > >> are running on a

Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:08:21PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > Wouter, > > > The server can always refuse to allow multiple connections. > > Sure, but it would be neater to warn the client of that at negotiation > stage (it would only be one flag, e.g. 'multiple connections > unsafe'). I

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH][V3] nbd: add multi-connection support

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:03:50AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > So think of it like normal disks with multiple channels. We don't send > flushes > down all the hwq's to make sure they are clear, we leave that decision up to > the > application (usually a FS of course). Well, when I asked

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH][V3] nbd: add multi-connection support

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:41:36AM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > Wouter, [...] > > Given that, given the issue in the previous > > paragraph, and given the uncertainty introduced with multiple > > connections, I think it is reasonable to say that a client should just > > not assume a flush touches

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH][V3] nbd: add multi-connection support

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:16:30AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 03:09:49PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Okay, I've updated the proto.md file then, to clarify that in the case > > of multiple connections, a client MUST NOT send a flush request until

Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:09:28PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > Wouter, Josef, (& Eric) > > > On 15 Sep 2016, at 11:49, Wouter Verhelst <w...@uter.be> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:02:03PM +0200, Wouter Verh

Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:52:17AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:46:07PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > > Essentially NBD does supports FLUSH/FUA like this: > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/block/writeback_cache_control.txt > > > > IE supports the same

Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:38:07AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:49:35PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > A while back, we spent quite some time defining the semantics of the > > various commands in the face of the NBD_CMD_FLUSH and NBD_CMD_FLA

Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements

Hi, On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:02:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > I see some practical problems with this: [...] One more that I didn't think about earlier: A while back, we spent quite some time defining the semantics of the various commands in the face of the NBD_CMD_FL

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH][V3] nbd: add multi-connection support

Hi Josef, On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 04:01:32PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > NBD can become contended on its single connection. We have to serialize all > writes and we can only process one read response at a time. Fix this by > allowing userspace to provide multiple connections to a single nbd

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH][V3] nbd: add multi-connection support

Alex, Christoph, On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 12:34:33PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > On 3 Oct 2016, at 08:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> Can you clarify what you mean by that? Why is it an "odd flush > >> definition", and how would you "properly" define it? > > > > E.g. take

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH][V3] nbd: add multi-connection support

On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:17:14PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > On 29 Sep 2016, at 17:59, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Huh I missed that. Yeah that's not possible for us for sure, I think my > > option > > idea is the less awful way forward if we want to address that limitation. > >

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH][V3] nbd: add multi-connection support

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 12:20:49AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 01:47:06AM +, Josef Bacik wrote: > > It's not "broken", it's working as designed, and any fs on top of this > > patch will be perfectly safe because they all wait for their io to complete > > before

Re: [PATCH][V4] nbd: add multi-connection support

Hi Josef, [cc to nbd-general added] On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:27:30PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > NBD can become contended on its single connection. We have to serialize all > writes and we can only process one read response at a time. Fix this by > allowing userspace to provide multiple

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 00/12] nbd: Netlink interface and path failure enhancements

Hi Josef, On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:05:25PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > This patchset adds a new netlink configuration interface to NBD as well as a > > bunch of enhancments around path failures. The patches

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 6/6] nbd: add a basic netlink interface

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:56:48AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 11:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:57:11AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > > > The existing ioctl interface for configuring NBD devices is a bi

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 6/6] nbd: add a basic netlink interface

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:57:11AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > The existing ioctl interface for configuring NBD devices is a bit > cumbersome and hard to extend. The other problem is we leave a > userspace app sitting in it's syscall until the device disconnects, > which is less than ideal.

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 3/4] treewide: convert PF_MEMALLOC manipulations to new helpers

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 01:30:31PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-04-17 09:46:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > We now have memalloc_noreclaim_{save,restore} helpers for robust setting and > > clearing of PF_MEMALLOC. Let's convert the code which was using the generic > > tsk_restore_flags().

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 1/3] nbd: allow multiple disconnects to be sent

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 07:24:30PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:48:13AM -0400, jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote: > > > From: Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com> > > > > > > T

Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 1/3] nbd: allow multiple disconnects to be sent

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:48:13AM -0400, jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote: > From: Josef Bacik > > There's no reason to limit ourselves to one disconnect message per > socket. Sometimes networks do strange things, might as well let > sysadmins hit the panic button as much as they

[Nbd] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update list for NBD

nbd-gene...@sourceforge.net becomes n...@other.debian.org, because sourceforge is just a spamtrap these days. Signed-off-by: Wouter Verhelst <w...@uter.be> Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com> --- MAINTAINERS | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/M

Re: [PATCH] nbd: set discard_alignment to the granularity

Hi Josef, On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:41:23AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Technically we should be able to get away with 0 as the > discard_alignment, but there's no way currently for the protocol to > indicate different alignments, Actually there is, with the NBD_INFO_BLOCK_SIZE (and related)