On 12/15/20 7:51 AM, Bob Liu wrote:
Hi Folks,
On 12/12/20 12:56 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 12/11/20 5:33 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 12/11/20 9:30 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
While I still think there needs to be a proper _upstream_ consumer of
blk_interposer as a condition of it going in.. I'll let others make the
call.
That's an unequivocal rule.
As such, I'll defer to Jens, Christoph and others on whether your
minimalist blk_interposer hook is acceptable in the near-term.
I don't think so, we don't do short term bandaids just to plan on
ripping that out when the real functionality is there. IMHO, the dm
approach is the way to go - it provides exactly the functionality that
is needed in an appropriate way, instead of hacking some "interposer"
into the core block layer.
Which is my plan, too.
I'll be working with the Veeam folks to present a joint patchset (including the DM bits) for the next round.
Besides the dm approach, do you think Veeam's original requirement is a good
use case of "block/bpf: add eBPF based block layer IO filtering"?
https://lwn.net/ml/bpf/20200812163305.545447-1-leah.rumancik@xxxxxxxxx/
That would actually a really cool use-case.
You could also consider a XDP-like functionality for eBPF, to move
individual requests from one queue to the other; DM on steroids :-)
Should I try to include that patchset?
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
