From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:35868 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762257AbdAJNGP (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:06:15 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f194.google.com with SMTP id b22so12586444pfd.3 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 05:06:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC][LSF/MM ATTEND] OCSSDs - SMR, Hierarchical Interface, and Vector I/Os To: Theodore Ts'o , Damien Le Moal References: <05204e9d-ed4d-f97a-88f0-41b5e008af43@bjorling.me> <1483398761.2440.4.camel@dubeyko.com> <1483464921.2440.19.camel@dubeyko.com> <9319ce16-8355-3560-95b6-45e3f07220de@bjorling.me> <20170104165745.7uuwl6phm6g6kouu@thunk.org> <1b457b77-34d8-ab82-ae1d-279e86053af9@wdc.com> <20170110042442.ixxxi4yhj5gu7byh@thunk.org> Cc: Slava Dubeyko , Viacheslav Dubeyko , "lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Linux FS Devel , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" From: Matias Bjorling Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:06:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170110042442.ixxxi4yhj5gu7byh@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 01/10/2017 05:24 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > This may be an area where if we can create the right framework, and > fund some research work, we might be able to get some researchers and > their graduate students interested in doing some work in figuring out > what sort of divisions of responsibilities and hints back and forth > between the storage device and host have the most benefit. > That is a good idea. There is a couple of papers at FAST with Open-Channel SSDs this year. They look into the interface and various ways to reduce latency fluctuations. One thing I've heard a couple of times is the feature to move the GC read/write process into the firmware. Enabling the host to offload GC data movement, while the keeping the host in control. Would this be beneficial for SMR? -Matias From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: m@bjorling.me (Matias Bjorling) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:06:01 +0100 Subject: [LSF/MM TOPIC][LSF/MM ATTEND] OCSSDs - SMR, Hierarchical Interface, and Vector I/Os In-Reply-To: <20170110042442.ixxxi4yhj5gu7byh@thunk.org> References: <05204e9d-ed4d-f97a-88f0-41b5e008af43@bjorling.me> <1483398761.2440.4.camel@dubeyko.com> <1483464921.2440.19.camel@dubeyko.com> <9319ce16-8355-3560-95b6-45e3f07220de@bjorling.me> <20170104165745.7uuwl6phm6g6kouu@thunk.org> <1b457b77-34d8-ab82-ae1d-279e86053af9@wdc.com> <20170110042442.ixxxi4yhj5gu7byh@thunk.org> Message-ID: On 01/10/2017 05:24 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > This may be an area where if we can create the right framework, and > fund some research work, we might be able to get some researchers and > their graduate students interested in doing some work in figuring out > what sort of divisions of responsibilities and hints back and forth > between the storage device and host have the most benefit. > That is a good idea. There is a couple of papers at FAST with Open-Channel SSDs this year. They look into the interface and various ways to reduce latency fluctuations. One thing I've heard a couple of times is the feature to move the GC read/write process into the firmware. Enabling the host to offload GC data movement, while the keeping the host in control. Would this be beneficial for SMR? -Matias