Re: [PATCH] lightnvm: fix memory leak when submit fails

[Heiner Litz <hlitz@ucsc.edu>]

thanks, Matias, I am going to look out for dm-zap!

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:14 PM Matias Bjørling <mb@lightnvm.io> wrote:
>
> On 21/01/2021 20.49, Heiner Litz wrote:
> > there are a couple more, but again I would understand if those are
> > deemed not important enough to keep it.
> >
> > device emulation of (non-ZNS) SSD block device
>
> That'll soon be available. We will be open-sourcing a new device mapper
> (dm-zap), which implements an indirection layer that enables ZNS SSDs to
> be exposed as a conventional block device.
>
> > die control: yes endurance groups would help but I am not aware of any
> > vendor supporting it
> It is out there. Although, is this still important in 2021? OCSSD was
> made back in the days where media program/erase suspend wasn't commonly
> available and SSD controller were more simple. With today's media and
> SSD controllers, it is hard to compete without leaving media throughput
> on the table. If needed, splitting a drive into a few partitions should
> be sufficient for many many types of workloads.
> > finer-grained control: 1000's of open blocks vs. a handful of
> > concurrently open zones
>
> It is dependent on the implementation - ZNS SSDs also supports 1000's of
> open zones.
>
> Wrt to available OCSSD hardware - there isn't, to my knowledge, proper
> implementations available, where media reliability is taken into account.
>
> Generally for the OCSSD hardware implementations, their UBER is
> extremely low, and as such RAID or similar schemes must be implemented
> on the host. pblk does not implement this, so at best, one should not
> store data if one wants to get it back at some point. It also makes for
> an unfair SSD comparison, as there is much more to an SSD than what
> OCSSD + pblk implements. At worst, it'll lead to false understanding of
> the challenges of making SSDs, and at best, work can be used as the
> foundation for doing an actual SSD implementation.
>
> > OOB area: helpful for L2P recovery
>
> It is known as LBA metadata in NVMe. It is commonly available in many of
> today's SSD.
>
> I understand your point that there is a lot of flexibility, but my
> counter point is that there isn't anything in OCSSD, that is not
> implementable or commonly available using today's NVMe concepts.
> Furthermore, the known OCSSD research platforms can easily be updated to
> expose the OCSSD characteristics through standardized NVMe concepts.
> That would probably make for a good research paper.
>
>