On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 05:53:48PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 09:28:05AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > > SSDs operates that way. FDP just reports more stuff because that's what > > people kept asking for. But it doesn't require you fundamentally change > > how you acces it. You've singled out FDP to force a sequential write > > requirement that that requires unique support from every filesystem > > despite the feature not needing that. > > No I haven't. If you think so you are fundamentally misunderstanding > what I'm saying. We have an API that has existed for 10+ years. You are gatekeeping that interface by declaring NVMe's FDP is not allowed to use it. Do I have that wrong? You initially blocked this because you didn't like how the spec committe worked. Now you've shifted to trying to pretend FDP devices require explicit filesystem handholding that was explicely NOT part of that protocol. > > We have demonstrated 40% reduction in write amplifcation from doing the > > most simplist possible thing that doesn't require any filesystem or > > kernel-user ABI changes at all. You might think that's not significant > > enough to let people realize those gains without more invasive block > > stack changes, but you may not buying NAND in bulk if that's the case. > > And as iterared multiple times you are doing that by bypassing the > file system layer in a forceful way that breaks all abstractions and > makes your feature unavailabe for file systems. Your filesystem layering breaks the abstraction and capabilities the drives are providing. You're doing more harm than good trying to game how the media works here. > I've also thrown your a nugget by first explaining and then even writing > protype code to show how you get what you want while using the proper > abstractions. Oh, the untested prototype that wasn't posted to any mailing list for a serious review? The one that forces FDP to subscribe to the zoned interface only for XFS, despite these devices being squarly in the "conventional" SSD catagory and absolutely NOT zone devices? Despite I have other users using other filesystems successfuly using the existing interfaces that your prototype doesn't do a thing for? Yah, thanks... I appreciate you put the time into getting your thoughts into actual code and it does look very valuable for ACTUAL ZONE block devices. But it seems to have missed the entire point of what this hardware feature does. If you're doing low level media garbage collection with FDP and tracking fake media write pointers, then you're doing it wrong. Please use Open Channel and ZNS SSDs if you want that interface and stop gatekeeping the EXISTING interface that has proven value in production software today. > But instead of a picking up on that you just whine like > this. Either spend a little bit of effort to actually get the interface > right or just shut up. Why the fuck should I make an effort to do improve your pet project that I don't have a customer for? They want to use the interface that was created 10 years ago, exactly for the reason it was created, and no one wants to introduce the risks of an untested and unproven major and invasive filesystem and block stack change in the kernel in the near term!
