> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Verkamp [mailto:dverkamp@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:16 AM > To: hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > mst@xxxxxxxxxx; jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx; axboe@xxxxxxxxx; > stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx; Liu, Changpeng <changpeng.liu@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:27 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:06:28PM -0700, Daniel Verkamp wrote: > > > From: Changpeng Liu <changpeng.liu@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > In commit 88c85538, "virtio-blk: add discard and write zeroes features > > > to specification" (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec), the virtio > > > > There is some issues in this spec. For one using the multiple ranges > > also for write zeroes is rather inefficient. Write zeroes really should > > use the same format as read and write. > > I wasn't involved in the writing of the spec, so I'll defer to Michael > and Changpeng here, but I'm not sure how "set in stone" the virtio > specification is, or if it can be updated somehow without breaking > compatibility. > > I agree that Write Zeroes would be simpler to implement as a single > LBA + length rather than a list. However, it's not really possible to > use the same format as the regular virtio block read/write commands > (VIRTIO_BLK_T_IN/VIRTIO_BLK_T_OUT), since the read/write commands do > not specify a length explicitly; length is implied by the length of > the data buffer as defined by the virtio descriptor, but a Write > Zeroes command does not require a data buffer. At best, this could be > a separate command mirroring the layout of struct virtio_blk_req but > with data replaced with a length field; I'm not sure that buys much in > the way of consistency. Yeah, that's the consideration here. > > > Second the unmap flag isn't properly specified at all, as nothing > > says the device may not unmap without the unmap flag. Please take > > a look at the SCSI or NVMe ѕpec for some guidance. > > This could probably use some clarifying text in the specification, but > given that there is nothing in the spec describing what the device > needs to do when unmap = 0, I would assume that the device can do > whatever it likes, as long as the blocks read back as 0s afterwards. > Reading back 0s is required by the definition of the Write Zeroes > command in the same virtio spec change. It would probably be good to > clarify this and explicitly define what the device is allowed to do in > response to both settings of the unmap bit. > > My understanding of the corresponding feature in NVMe (the Deallocate > bit in the Write Zeroes command) is that the only difference between > Deallocate = 1 and 0 is that the device "should" versus "may" (no > "shall" on either side) deallocate the corresponding blocks, but only > if the device supports reading 0s back after blocks are deallocated. > If the device does not support reading 0s after deallocation, it is > not allowed to deallocate blocks as part of a Write Zeroes command > regardless of the setting of the Deallocate bit. > > Some similar wording could probably be added to the virtio spec to > clarify the meaning of unmap, although I would prefer something that > makes it a little clearer that the bit is only intended as a hint from > the driver to indicate whether the device should attempt to keep > storage allocated for the zeroed blocks, if that is indeed the > intended behavior. Yes, that's the original idea. Adding a clear description to the specification may be better. > > Is there some in-kernel doc that describes what behavior the Linux > block layer needs from a write zeroes command? > > > > +static inline int virtblk_setup_discard_write_zeroes(struct request *req, > > > + bool unmap) > > > > Why is this an inline function? > > I don't think there's any reason it needs to be inline; I can drop the > inline in the next revision. > > Given (as far as I can tell) your concerns seem to apply to the Write > Zeroes command specifically, would it be reasonable to start with a > patch that just adds support for the Discard command (along with fixes > for Ming's feedback)? This would be sufficient for my particular use > case (although I can't speak for Changpeng), and we can revisit Write > Zeroes once the spec concerns are worked out. > > Thanks, > -- Daniel _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
