On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:21:57AM -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> Em 25-05-2010 20:52, Minchan Kim escreveu:
> >On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Cesar Eduardo Barros<cesarb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>And, in fact, there is a CRC code in the block layer; it is
> >>CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY. However, it is not a generic solution; it needs
> >>some extra prerequisites (like a disk low-level formatted with sectors with
> >>>512 bytes).
> >
> >You mean BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY has a dependency with block device driver?
> >If you want to support checksum into suspend, At last, should we put
> >the checksum on disk?
> >
> >I mean could we extend BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY by more generic solution?
> >As you said, in case of swap, we don't need to put checksum on disk.
>
> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY writes the checksum to the same sector as
> the data. However, for that to be possible, the sector size is
> increased on the disk itself, from 512 bytes to 520 bytes (and not
> all disks can do that). It is not a generic solution. It also, as
It means if disk don't support 520 byte sector, CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY
can't work? That means CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY depends on block device?
> far as I can see, does nothing against the disk simply failing to
> write and later returning stale data, since the stale checksum would
> match the stale data.
Sorry. I can't understand your point.
Who makes stale data? If any layer makes data as stale, integrity is up to
the layer. Maybe I am missing your point.
Could you explain more detail?
>
> See the LWN article [1] and the presentations [2] for more detail.
Thanks for good information.
>
> For suspend, the swap checksum pages would be saved together with
> the rest of the memory (they are in the memory, after all), and the
> suspend snapshot would have its own separate checksum (written
> directly to the disk after the image).
>
> >If swap case, let it put the one on memory. If non-swap case, let it
> >put checksum on disk,
> >I am not sure it's possible.
> >
> >When we have a unreliable disk, your point is that let's solve it with
> >(btrfs + swap) which both supports checksum. And my point is that
> >let's solve it with (any file system + swap) which is put on block
> >layer which supports checksum.
>
> A generic "checksumming block device" would be less efficient.
>
> For the swap case, it cannot exploit the fact that its state
> tracking is within the swapfile code. Avi Kivity's idea of storing
> the checksum in otherwise wasted bits of the pte is an example of
> how this could be exploited in the future. In fact, the reason I did
> it on the swap layer (instead of interposing something in the block
> layer) was precisely to make it easier to enhance the state tracking
> in the future (and also because it felt the most natural layer to do
> it).
Hmm. I don't know what is the state you mentioned in future.
But As view of design, I tend to agree.
>
> It would also complicate adding checksums to the software suspend
> snapshot. While normally you do not want to write the swap checksums
> to the disk, you do want to write them when saving the memory
> snapshot - which is written to the same block device. However, the
> checksums for the rest of the swap pages are already being saved as
> part of the memory snapshot (since the checksums were in the
> memory).
>
> For the generic ("any file system") case, it is worse, since you
> actually have to write the checksum to the disk, and unlike in the
> software suspend case you cannot simply write them all in one pass
> at the end. In the worst case, you would have to write twice for
> each sector/page - once for the data, and once for the checksums
> (CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY completely avoids this issue since with it
> the checksum is together with the data in the same sector). Not to
> mention fun things like write amplification.
>
> A filesystem with data checksums can write the checksum as part of
> its normal metadata updates (which it already has to do anyway).
>
> A generic "checksumming block device" could be a way of "updating" a
> filesystem without checksums (or with only metadata checksums) to
> have them. However, I believe it would be more productive to add
> them directly to the filesystem itself. Even more since the only way
> I can see of doing it efficiently in a generic block layer is by
> using lots of filesystem-style tricks (things like a log-structured
> list of CRC values, dividing the device in "block groups" to keep
> the checksum close to the data, and so on).
>
>
> [1] Block layer: integrity checking and lots of partitions
> http://lwn.net/Articles/290141/
> [2] http://oss.oracle.com/projects/data-integrity/documentation/
Thanks for good explanation.
I agree we don't have any method to detect disk error about swap pages.
I am not sure we _really_ need it and who want it in practice(now even
many of file systems don't support checksum) but it's optional feature.
so if there is anyone want it, he just use it by enable.
Yes. I am not against this patch any more.
I hope when you send this patch, please, write down things discussed with
me in description.
1. Why do we need it?(ie, who can use it useful?)
2. Why is CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY's extension bad design?
And
3. Please, Cc Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for good reply on my long bore question.
>
> --
> Cesar Eduardo Barros
> cesarb@xxxxxxxxxx
> cesar.barros@xxxxxxxxx
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>