Re: [PATCH 0/5] zbd: drop 'sectors with data' accounting

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Jan 31, 2023 / 01:37, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2023 / 10:33, Niklas Cassel wrote:

[...]

> > 
> > I understand that you change the way that the accounting works, but
> > I don't think that we should just totally change the definition of an
> > existing option just because we think it should have been defined in
> > another way.
> > 
> > Can't you:
> > -Change the accounting
> > -Clarify the definition of the option, but keep it like it is,
> >  regardless if it causes zone lock contention or not.
> 
> In case we would keep the current definition (accounting per job), still we can
> avoid the wrong accounting and the zone lock contention by checking write range
> overlap. If the option is specified together with multiple jobs with overlapping
> write ranges, fio can error out so that users can know that the option does not
> work as expected. However, I am reluctant to take this approach since its use
> cases are limited (no write range overlap) and it adds 8 bytes to the struct
> fio_file only for the option.
> 
> > -Implement a new option that might be more optimal, and does not
> >  cause zone lock contention?
> 
> This sounds good to me. The new option name can be zone_reset_threshold_per_dev.
> 
> > -Potentially deprecate or remove the old zone_reset_threshold option.
> 
> Yes, if we introduce the new option, I prefer to remove the old option.

After further consideration, it does not look good to change the
zone_reset_threshold option to the new one. I will post v2 series which keeps
the definition of the option as it is, and resolves the issues with a different
approach.

-- 
Shin'ichiro Kawasaki



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux