On 3/5/22 07:10, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 11:10:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 04:56:54PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: >>> Thinking proactively about LSFMM, regarding just Zone storage.. >>> >>> I'd like to propose a BoF for Zoned Storage. The point of it is >>> to address the existing point points we have and take advantage of >>> having folks in the room we can likely settle on things faster which >>> otherwise would take years. >>> >>> I'll throw at least one topic out: >>> >>> * Raw access for zone append for microbenchmarks: >>> - are we really happy with the status quo? >>> - if not what outlets do we have? >>> >>> I think the nvme passthrogh stuff deserves it's own shared >>> discussion though and should not make it part of the BoF. >> >> Reading through the discussion on this thread, perhaps this session >> should be used to educate application developers about how to use >> ZoneFS so they never need to manage low level details of zone >> storage such as enumerating zones, controlling write pointers >> safely for concurrent IO, performing zone resets, etc. > > I'm not even sure users are really aware that given cap can be different > than zone size and btrfs uses zone size to compute size, the size is a > flat out lie. > > modprobe null_blk nr_devices=0 > mkdir /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0 > echo 0 > /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0/completion_nsec > echo 0 > /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0/irqmode > echo 2 > /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0/queue_mode > echo 1024 > /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0/hw_queue_depth > echo 1 > /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0/memory_backed > echo 1 > /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0/zoned > > echo 128 > /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0/zone_size > # 6 zones are implied, we are saying 768 for the full storage size.. > # but... > echo 768 > /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0/size > > # If we force capacity to be way less than the zone sizes, btrfs still > # uses the zone size to do its data / metadata size computation... > echo 32 > /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0/zone_capacity > > # No conventional zones > echo 0 > /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0/zone_nr_conv > > echo 1 > /sys/kernel/config/nullb/nullb0/power > echo mq-deadline > /sys/block/nullb0/queue/scheduler > > # mkfs.btrfs -f -d single -m single /dev/nullb0 > Label: (null) > UUID: e725782a-d2d3-4c02-97fd-0501de117323 > Node size: 16384 > Sector size: 4096 > Filesystem size: 768.00MiB > Block group profiles: > Data: single 128.00MiB > Metadata: single 128.00MiB > System: single 128.00MiB > SSD detected: yes > Zoned device: yes > Zone size: 128.00MiB > Incompat features: extref, skinny-metadata, no-holes, zoned > Runtime features: free-space-tree > Checksum: crc32c > Number of devices: 1 > Devices: > ID SIZE PATH > 1 768.00MiB /dev/nullb0 > > # mount /dev/nullb0 /mnt > # btrfs fi show > Label: none uuid: e725782a-d2d3-4c02-97fd-0501de117323 > Total devices 1 FS bytes used 144.00KiB > devid 1 size 768.00MiB used 384.00MiB path > /dev/nullb0 > > # btrfs fi df /mnt > Data, single: total=128.00MiB, used=0.00B > System, single: total=128.00MiB, used=16.00KiB > Metadata, single: total=128.00MiB, used=128.00KiB > GlobalReserve, single: total=3.50MiB, used=0.00B > > Since btrfs already has "real size" problems this existing > design takes this a bit further without a fix either. I suspect > quite a bit of puzzled users will be unhappy that even though > ZNS claims to kill overprovisioning we're now somehow lying > about size. I'm not even sure this might be good for the > filesystem / metadata. btrfs maps zones to block groups and the sectors between zone capacity and zone size are marked as unusable. The report above is not showing that. The coding is correct though. The block allocation will not be attempted beyond zone capacity. > > Luis -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
