From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> To: Hans Holmberg <Hans.Holmberg@wdc.com> Cc: "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>, Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>, "chao@kernel.org" <chao@kernel.org>, "linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, "hans@owltronix.com" <hans@owltronix.com>, Aravind Ramesh <Aravind.Ramesh@wdc.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] f2fs: preserve direct write semantics when buffering is forced Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:36:23 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <ZH45N4nsqxCnhnoU@google.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20230605115638.GA23662@gsv> On 06/05, Hans Holmberg wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 04:39:10PM -0700, hch@infradead.org wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 05:46:37PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > > Yes, and that was exactly my point: with LFS mode, O_DIRECT write > > > > should never overwrite anything. So I do not see why direct writes > > > > should be handled as buffered writes with zoned devices. Am I missing > > > > something here ? > > > > > > That's an easiest way to serialize block allocation and submit_bio when users > > > are calling buffered writes and direct writes in parallel. :) > > > I just felt that if we can manage both of them in direct write path along with > > > buffered write path, we may be able to avoid memcpy. > > > > Yes. Note that right now f2fs doesn't really support proper O_DIRECT > > for buffered I/O either, as non-overwrites require a feature similar > > to unwritten extents, or a split of the allocation phase and the record > > metdata phase. If we'd go for the second choice for f2fs, which is the > > more elegant thing to do, you'll get the zoned direct I/O write support > > almost for free. > > So, Jaegeuk, do you think suporting direct io proper is the way to do to fix this > issue? That looks like a better solution to me (at least long term). > > Until that would be put into place, do you want my fix (with your code > style fixes) rebased and resent? Yes, it's already landed in 6.4-rc1 of Linus tree, and surely I have the topic in my long term plan. Thanks, > > Cheers, > Hans
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> To: Hans Holmberg <Hans.Holmberg@wdc.com> Cc: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [RFC PATCH] f2fs: preserve direct write semantics when buffering is forced Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:36:23 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <ZH45N4nsqxCnhnoU@google.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20230605115638.GA23662@gsv> On 06/05, Hans Holmberg wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 04:39:10PM -0700, hch@infradead.org wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 05:46:37PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > > Yes, and that was exactly my point: with LFS mode, O_DIRECT write > > > > should never overwrite anything. So I do not see why direct writes > > > > should be handled as buffered writes with zoned devices. Am I missing > > > > something here ? > > > > > > That's an easiest way to serialize block allocation and submit_bio when users > > > are calling buffered writes and direct writes in parallel. :) > > > I just felt that if we can manage both of them in direct write path along with > > > buffered write path, we may be able to avoid memcpy. > > > > Yes. Note that right now f2fs doesn't really support proper O_DIRECT > > for buffered I/O either, as non-overwrites require a feature similar > > to unwritten extents, or a split of the allocation phase and the record > > metdata phase. If we'd go for the second choice for f2fs, which is the > > more elegant thing to do, you'll get the zoned direct I/O write support > > almost for free. > > So, Jaegeuk, do you think suporting direct io proper is the way to do to fix this > issue? That looks like a better solution to me (at least long term). > > Until that would be put into place, do you want my fix (with your code > style fixes) rebased and resent? Yes, it's already landed in 6.4-rc1 of Linus tree, and surely I have the topic in my long term plan. Thanks, > > Cheers, > Hans _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-05 19:36 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-02-20 12:20 [RFC PATCH] f2fs: preserve direct write semantics when buffering is forced Hans Holmberg 2023-02-20 12:20 ` [f2fs-dev] " Hans Holmberg via Linux-f2fs-devel [not found] ` <CGME20230220123747epcas2p4c72ace14d10031df7aa116999ad5fe25@epcms2p8> 2023-02-22 11:08 ` Yonggil Song 2023-02-22 11:08 ` Yonggil Song 2023-03-20 13:42 ` Christoph Hellwig 2023-03-20 13:42 ` [f2fs-dev] " Christoph Hellwig 2023-03-23 22:14 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2023-03-23 22:14 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim 2023-03-23 23:02 ` Damien Le Moal 2023-03-23 23:02 ` [f2fs-dev] " Damien Le Moal via Linux-f2fs-devel 2023-03-23 23:46 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2023-03-23 23:46 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim 2023-03-24 0:06 ` Damien Le Moal 2023-03-24 0:06 ` [f2fs-dev] " Damien Le Moal via Linux-f2fs-devel 2023-03-24 0:46 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2023-03-24 0:46 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim 2023-03-26 23:39 ` hch 2023-03-26 23:39 ` [f2fs-dev] " hch 2023-06-05 11:56 ` Hans Holmberg 2023-06-05 11:56 ` [f2fs-dev] " Hans Holmberg via Linux-f2fs-devel 2023-06-05 19:36 ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message] 2023-06-05 19:36 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2023-03-23 22:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2023-03-23 22:37 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=ZH45N4nsqxCnhnoU@google.com \ --to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \ --cc=Aravind.Ramesh@wdc.com \ --cc=Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com \ --cc=Hans.Holmberg@wdc.com \ --cc=chao@kernel.org \ --cc=hans@owltronix.com \ --cc=hch@infradead.org \ --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.