On 07/22/2014 07:46 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 07/21/2014 09:28 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 04:23:41PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 07/18/2014 07:04 PM, John Utz wrote:
On 07/18/2014 05:31 AM, John Utz wrote:
Thankyou very much for the exhaustive answer! I forwarded on to my
project peers because i don't think any of us where aware of the
existing infrastructure.
Of course, said infrastructure would have to be taught about ZAC,
but it seems like it would be a nice place to start testing from....
ZAC is a different beast altogether; I've posted an initial set of
patches a while back on linux-scsi.
But I don't think multipath needs to be changed for that.
Other areas of device-mapper most certainly do.
Pretty sure John is working on a new ZAC-oriented DM target.
YUP.
Per Ted T'so's suggestion several months ago, the goal is to create
a new DM target that implements the ZAC/ZBC command set and the SMR
write pointer architecture so that FSfolksen can try their hand at
porting their stuff to it.
It's in the very early stages so there is nothing to show yet, but
development is ongoing. There are a few unknowns about how to surface
some specific behaviors (new verbs and errors, particularly errors
with sense codes that return a write pointer) but i have not gotten
far enuf along in development to be able to construct succint and
specific questions on the topic so that will have to wait for a bit.
I was pondering the 'best' ZAC implementation, too, and found the
'report zones' command _very_ cumbersome to use.
Especially the fact that in theory each zone could have a different size
_and_ plenty of zones could be present will be making zone lookup
hellish.
However: it seems to me that we might benefit from a generic
'block boundaries' implementation.
Reasoning here is that several subsystems (RAID, ZAC/ZBC, and things
like
referrals) impose I/O scheduling boundaries which must not be crossed
when
assembling requests.
Wasn't Ted working on such a thing?
Seeing that we already have some block limitations I was wondering if we
couldn't have some set of 'I/O scheduling boundaries' as part
of the request_queue structure.
I'd prefer not to dump yet more crap in request_queue, but that's a
fairly minor
quibble :)
I also tend to think having different size zones is crazy and I would
avoid
making any effort to support that in practice, but OTOH there's good
reason for
wanting one or two "normal" zones and the rest append only so the
interface is
going to have to accomadate some differences between zones.
Also, depending on the approach supporting different size zones might not
actually be problematic. If you're starting with something that's pure
COW and
you're just plugging in this "ZAC allocation" stuff (which I think is
what I'm
going to do in bcache) then it might not actually be an issue.
No, what I was suggesting is to introduce 'I/O scheduling barriers'.
Some devices like RAID or indeed ZAC have internal boundaries which
cannot be crossed by any I/O. So either the I/O has to be split up or
the I/O scheduler have to be made aware of these boundaries.
I have had this issue several times now (once with implementing
Referrals, now with ZAC) so I was wondering whether we can have some
sort of generic implementation in the block layer.
Would it make any sense to put the hole block allocation strategy within
the block layer (or just on top of the device driver) and then let
MDs/FSs users hook into this for allocating new blocks?
That allows multiple implementations to use the same block address space.
And as we're already having request queue limits this might fall quite
naturally into it. Or so I thought.
Hmm. Guess I should start coding here.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
