On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:53:51AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 12/5/22 11:36 AM, Alvaro Karsz wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> Is this based on some spec? Because it looks pretty odd to me. There > >> can be a pretty wide range of two/three/etc level cells with wildly > >> different ranges of durability. And there's really not a lot of slc > >> for generic devices these days, if any. > > > > Yes, this is based on the virtio spec > > https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.2/csd01/virtio-v1.2-csd01.html > > section 5.2.6 > > And where did this come from? Here's the commit log from the spec: In many embedded systems, virtio-blk implementations are backed by eMMC or UFS storage devices, which are subject to predictable and measurable wear over time due to repeated write cycles. For such systems, it can be important to be able to track accurately the amount of wear imposed on the storage over time and surface it to applications. In a native deployments this is generally handled by the physical block device driver but no such provision is made in virtio-blk to expose these metrics for devices where it makes sense to do so. This patch adds support to virtio-blk for lifetime and wear metrics to be exposed to the guest when a deployment of virtio-blk is done over compatible eMMC or UFS storage. Signed-off-by: Enrico Granata <egranata@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc Enrico Granata as well. > -- > Jens Axboe >
