Re: Bcache v. whatever

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Dr. Greg Wettstein]

On Jan 14,  2:32pm, Kent Overstreet wrote:
} Subject: Bcache v. whatever

Hi Kent, hope your week is going well.

> Bcache: a block layer SSD cache
>
..
>
> This latest branch is on top of v3.8-rc3:

Glad to see the push to get bcache mainlined.  I've been meaning to
send you an e-mail on this but the holiday managed to push work back
on almost everything.... :-)

We have been working to get ready to take bcache into testing as a
component in our storage virtualization servers.  We are currently
basing our systems on the longterm 3.4 kernel.

Off the top of your head are there any mainline kernel dependency
issues which would preclude working a patch up against 3.4?  If not I
will putz around with GIT a bit and see if I can get a patch worked up
against 3.4 and post it on an FTP server as it seems to be easier for
people to grab that for testing.

If we can get that done I will put it into an environment where we can
drive a few hundred terrabytes of multi-initiator I/O against it and
see if anything shakes out.

Thanks again for all your effort on this.

Have a good week.

}-- End of excerpt from Kent Overstreet

As always,
Dr. G.W. Wettstein, Ph.D.   Enjellic Systems Development, LLC.
4206 N. 19th Ave.           Specializing in information infra-structure
Fargo, ND  58102            development.
PH: 701-281-1686
FAX: 701-281-3949           EMAIL: greg-R92VP3DqSWVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I created a hack to make the division come out right ... I was
 relieved because I thought I was coding wrong.

 Did you?  It took a guy (Thomas Nicely) with a Ph.D. doing heavy
 research in computational number theory to find it, yet you found it
 while working on a game in QuickBasic?"
                                -- Slashdot

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Kent Overstreet]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 01:24:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > As far as I can tell the only real improvement would be to add a %p
> > format string to vsnprintf, but adding a global extension would obviously be
> > inappropriate for this. It'd be really nice to have a mechanism for
> > adding file/module private format strings to vsnprintf, but I haven't
> > cared enough yet to implement it myself.
> > 
> > Of course if you know a better solution I'm all ears.
> > 
> > Uhm, as for the actual bug - that is a fairly ancient gcc, I wasn't
> > aware we were supporting compilers that old but I'm sure you wouldn't be
> > bugging me about it if we weren't...
> 
> Why are those things macros anyway?  urgh, it's because we want to jam
> a string into the caller's stack frame without declaring any of it.

Well, it also _used_ to be the case that if DEBUG and
CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG weren't defined then pr_debug() was defined as an
empty macro, so btree_to_text() wouldn't be called.

But, I just checked and it's been converted to an empty inline
function, and some of this debug code is called from fast paths where
the overhead really does matter :/ argh

> Really I do think it would be better to do away with the C party tricks
> and have callers do
> 
> 	char btree_buf[BTREE_BUF_SIZE];
> 
> 	btree_to_text(btree_buf, b);
> 	pr_debug("%s\n", btree_buf);
> 
> Nice, simple, explicit, direct and stupid.  It might generate
> unused-var warnings if DEBUG is undefined but from my reading of
> pr_debug() things will be OK.
> 
> Then we can poke around at btree_to_text() until gcc-3.4.5 is happy
> with it.

Well, since pr_debug() isn't an empty macro anymore there goes my main
reason for keeping these macros around.

seems like pr_debug() could still have the no_printk() call inside an
if (0) though...

argh. If there was some way to tell gcc "this function only modifies
this argument so you don't have to call it if the output is never used"
then I'd just convert it to the explicit bufs now. But I really can't
have btree_to_text()/bkey_to_text() getting called in non debug
kernels...

I'm going to mull it over a bit for now, and try and decide what's least
ugly.

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:46:42 -0700 Kent Overstreet <koverstreet-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 04:17:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:32:02 -0800 Kent Overstreet <koverstreet-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > 
> ...
> > drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `bch_btree_refill_keybuf':
> > drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:2330: error: invalid operands to binary +
> > 
> > due to
> > 
> > #define pbtree(b)       (&bch_pbtree(b).s[0])
> > 
> > I don't know why this is happening (presumably a gcc glitch), but
> > returning an 80-byte struct by value from bch_pkey() and bch_pbtree()
> > is just gruesome.  The compiler has to allocate the space on the caller
> > stack, pass a hidden pointer into the callee and the callee copies its
> > return value into that caller stack slot.  It's slow and consumes stack.
> > 
> > Something different, please.
> 
> Well, it is kind of... perverse but really the compiler's doing exactly
> what I would've had to do otherwise - stick a char buf[80] on the
> caller's stack and pass it to bch_pbtree(). With the caveat that I
> haven't looked at the generated code.

That's the more idiomatic way of doing things and yes, the code
generation will be similarly awful.

> As far as I can tell the only real improvement would be to add a %p
> format string to vsnprintf, but adding a global extension would obviously be
> inappropriate for this. It'd be really nice to have a mechanism for
> adding file/module private format strings to vsnprintf, but I haven't
> cared enough yet to implement it myself.
> 
> Of course if you know a better solution I'm all ears.
> 
> Uhm, as for the actual bug - that is a fairly ancient gcc, I wasn't
> aware we were supporting compilers that old but I'm sure you wouldn't be
> bugging me about it if we weren't...

Documentation/Changes is the official status.  It says gcc-3.2+.  We're
very slow in updating those version numbers because it's hard. 
gcc-3.4.5 for mips fails in the same way.

Why are those things macros anyway?  urgh, it's because we want to jam
a string into the caller's stack frame without declaring any of it.


Really I do think it would be better to do away with the C party tricks
and have callers do

	char btree_buf[BTREE_BUF_SIZE];

	btree_to_text(btree_buf, b);
	pr_debug("%s\n", btree_buf);

Nice, simple, explicit, direct and stupid.  It might generate
unused-var warnings if DEBUG is undefined but from my reading of
pr_debug() things will be OK.

Then we can poke around at btree_to_text() until gcc-3.4.5 is happy
with it.

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Kent Overstreet]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 04:17:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:32:02 -0800 Kent Overstreet <koverstreet-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> > Bcache: a block layer SSD cache
> 
> sparc64 gcc-3.4.5:
> 
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `bch_btree_read':
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:266: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `__btree_write':
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:379: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `btree_node_free':
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:980: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `btree_insert_key':
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1857: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1857: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1859: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1859: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1864: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1864: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `btree_split':
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1934: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `bch_btree_set_root':
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:2159: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `bch_btree_search_recurse':
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:2262: error: invalid operands to binary +
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `bch_btree_refill_keybuf':
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:2330: error: invalid operands to binary +
> 
> due to
> 
> #define pbtree(b)       (&bch_pbtree(b).s[0])
> 
> I don't know why this is happening (presumably a gcc glitch), but
> returning an 80-byte struct by value from bch_pkey() and bch_pbtree()
> is just gruesome.  The compiler has to allocate the space on the caller
> stack, pass a hidden pointer into the callee and the callee copies its
> return value into that caller stack slot.  It's slow and consumes stack.
> 
> Something different, please.

Well, it is kind of... perverse but really the compiler's doing exactly
what I would've had to do otherwise - stick a char buf[80] on the
caller's stack and pass it to bch_pbtree(). With the caveat that I
haven't looked at the generated code.

As far as I can tell the only real improvement would be to add a %p
format string to vsnprintf, but adding a global extension would obviously be
inappropriate for this. It'd be really nice to have a mechanism for
adding file/module private format strings to vsnprintf, but I haven't
cared enough yet to implement it myself.

Of course if you know a better solution I'm all ears.

Uhm, as for the actual bug - that is a fairly ancient gcc, I wasn't
aware we were supporting compilers that old but I'm sure you wouldn't be
bugging me about it if we weren't...

If you _really_ want me to rip out the macro/struct return hack I
will... but this is just debug code and I hate making it more verbose if
I don't have to.

Otherwise, I'll set up gcc-3.4.5 (hopefully it doesn't have to be a
sparc compiler :P) and see if I can get gcc to stop complaining.

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:32:02 -0800 Kent Overstreet <koverstreet-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Bcache: a block layer SSD cache

sparc64 gcc-3.4.5:

drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `bch_btree_read':
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:266: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `__btree_write':
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:379: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `btree_node_free':
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:980: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `btree_insert_key':
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1857: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1857: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1859: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1859: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1864: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1864: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `btree_split':
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:1934: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `bch_btree_set_root':
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:2159: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `bch_btree_search_recurse':
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:2262: error: invalid operands to binary +
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c: In function `bch_btree_refill_keybuf':
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c:2330: error: invalid operands to binary +

due to

#define pbtree(b)       (&bch_pbtree(b).s[0])

I don't know why this is happening (presumably a gcc glitch), but
returning an 80-byte struct by value from bch_pkey() and bch_pbtree()
is just gruesome.  The compiler has to allocate the space on the caller
stack, pass a hidden pointer into the callee and the callee copies its
return value into that caller stack slot.  It's slow and consumes stack.

Something different, please.

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Mike Snitzer]

On Tue, Jan 15 2013 at  8:29pm -0500,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 03:33:47PM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > I haven't been active on dm-devel, besides the occasional cross
> > posting... not sure what activity you're referring to on the dm list,
>  
> A caching framework based on dm has been proposed by Joe Thornber (the
> original author of dm).
> 
> Mike Snitzer is trying to adapt the performance tests for this dm-based
> framework to include the latest bcache code that you just posted to
> start to give us an idea of the circumstances in which each of them work
> well (or badly).

Unfortunately, the first automated test in the thinp-test-suite that I
ported to work with Bcache fails, here is a shell script that reproduces
the problem (having bcache use a small SSD is key to reproducing):

## /dev/spindle/data is a 16G linear LV on a SAS spindle
## /dev/stec/256m_lv is a 256M linear LV on a PCI-e SSD
## (larger SSD volume doesn't have this problem; because the working set fits better?)
make-bcache -B /dev/spindle/data -C /dev/stec/256m_lv --cache_replacement_policy=fifo -w 4096 --writeback --discard
echo /dev/spindle/data > /sys/fs/bcache/register
echo /dev/stec/256m_lv > /sys/fs/bcache/register
DM_DEV_NAME=$(basename `readlink /dev/mapper/spindle-data`)
BCACHE_DEV=$(basename `readlink /sys/block/${DM_DEV_NAME}/bcache/dev`)
mkfs.ext4 -E lazy_itable_init=1 /dev/${BCACHE_DEV}
mkdir ./kernel_builds
mount /dev/${BCACHE_DEV} ./kernel_builds -o discard
cd ./kernel_builds
## /root/linux-github is a local clone of linus' git repo
git clone /root/linux-github linux
cd linux
git checkout v2.6.12
sync
echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches


The drop_caches hangs (sh spins eating cpu), and ./kernel_builds cannot
be unmounted:

# ps auwwx | grep spin_bcache
root     18148 98.4  0.0 106208  1320 pts/2    R+   17:42  49:39 /bin/sh /root/bin/spin_bcache

spin_bcache     R  running task        0 18148   4886 0x00000000
 00000000154d154d 0000000000000000 ffff8802edc00d90 ffff88032d395e48
 0000000000000001 ffffffffffffff10 0000000000000018 ffff8802f9802800
 ffff88032d395d28 ffffffff8116b8d5 ffff88032de6f000 ffff880332682800
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff814f67e2>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x12/0x30
 [<ffffffff8116b8d5>] ? put_super+0x25/0x40
 [<ffffffff8116ba65>] ? grab_super_passive+0x25/0xa0
 [<ffffffff8116bb3f>] ? prune_super+0x5f/0x1a0
 [<ffffffff8111d131>] ? shrink_slab+0xa1/0x2c0
 [<ffffffff8111d096>] ? shrink_slab+0x6/0x2c0
 [<ffffffff81194b22>] ? drop_caches_sysctl_handler+0x62/0x90
 [<ffffffff811d7f56>] ? proc_sys_call_handler+0x96/0xd0
 [<ffffffff811d7fa4>] ? proc_sys_write+0x14/0x20
 [<ffffffff81169194>] ? vfs_write+0xb4/0x130
 [<ffffffff8116993f>] ? sys_write+0x5f/0xa0
 [<ffffffff814ff119>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Alasdair G Kergon]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 03:33:47PM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> I haven't been active on dm-devel, besides the occasional cross
> posting... not sure what activity you're referring to on the dm list,
 
A caching framework based on dm has been proposed by Joe Thornber (the
original author of dm).

Mike Snitzer is trying to adapt the performance tests for this dm-based
framework to include the latest bcache code that you just posted to
start to give us an idea of the circumstances in which each of them work
well (or badly).

1, Caching is a complicated feature: It's easy to get no benefit or even
a negative benefit from a cache if you use an inappropriate policy or
don't tune it to your I/O patterns.

2. We now have several independent/overlapping implementations of this
type of caching.  Comparing and contrasting them should help us to tease
out the critical design elements and optimisations and decide which of
them together or separately (or some hybrid) would enable the kernel to
support the widest range of situations users require with the minimum
of code and complexity.

3. We all want to move quickly now, perhaps even with something in the
next merge window if we can or otherwise the one after that.

Alasdair

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Kent Overstreet]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:15:38PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> I think md integration would be a bit of a mistake, since md is pretty
> much only a raid engine at this point in time.  There are also a couple
> of other dm cache targets, so it would be nice to have one rather than
> three.  This all, however, seems to be under discussion on the dm list.

The raid vs. caching bit is a bit beside the point IMO; they both
aggregate block devices and expose virtual block devices, and the
mechanism for doing so isn't part of the generic framework.

I'm not morally opposed to dm integration, I'm just more comfortable
with the md code and find it easier to understand and work with.

And the goal I care about is just commonality of userspace interfaces
and tooling, which integration with either would accomplish.

> > So I'm not sure why it'd go in via dm, it seems to me it'd make just as
> > much sense for it to go in via Neil Brown's tree. Unless there's
> > something I'm missing?
> 
> Um, well there's no caching patches in the md tree; it's RAID only.  The
> basic caching stuff is all in the dm tree, which is why it's the natural
> one.
> 
> It seems to me that your stuff is progressing on the dm list, so I don't
> really see a need to circumvent the process in the dm tree ... unless
> there's some problem I'm not seeing?

I haven't been active on dm-devel, besides the occasional cross
posting... not sure what activity you're referring to on the dm list,

But if Alasdair wants to pick it up I'm not complaining, I don't
particularly care who merges it.

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[James Bottomley]

On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 12:59 -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:20:56AM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 14:32 -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > Bcache: a block layer SSD cache
> > > 
> > > Does writethrough and writeback, handles unclean shutdown, and has
> > > various other nifty features. See the wiki and the documentation for
> > > more:
> > > 
> > > http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org
> > > 
> > > Over the Christmas break I finally got the tree into a self contained
> > > state that ought to be suitable for merging; this tree is fairly close
> > > to the previous stable tree that people have been running on production
> > > servers for awhile (and that I've been running on this workstation), 
> > > 
> > > So, I think this is ready for mainline and I'd like to get it in. I
> > > should've tried to push it ages ago, but I was hoping to get in various
> > > block layer cleanups first; I finally deided to work around them in the
> > > meantime since I haven't had time to finish the block layer stuff.
> > > 
> > > Not everything has been addressed since I last posted for review
> > > feedback - notably the closure code was controversial and for now I've
> > > just moved that into drivers/block/bcache (though I've been refactoring
> > > stuff to make it less asynchronous lately; most of that work is in the
> > > testing/dev branches). The bigger issue IMO is the userspace interface -
> > > I'd like to finish the md integration so it doesn't need userspace stuff
> > > for probing/bootup. So, I'd be fine with it going into staging if that's
> > > the consensus, but it's stable tested code.
> > > 
> > > The code is available at
> > > http://evilpiepirate.org/git/linux-bcache.git bcache-for-upstream
> > > 
> > > This latest branch is on top of v3.8-rc3:
> > 
> > The guy to merge this is the maintainer in that layer, which is Alasdair
> > Kergon.  I know you've been sending patches to the dm-devel list, what's
> > the reason you didn't include him in the cc list?  Is there some type of
> > political problem in dm?  From reading the list, it looks like your
> > patches are being tested and progressing, so what am I missing?
> 
> That was merely an oversight - but, bcache is currently just another
> block device, it doesn't plug into dm or md. There was some md
> integration work started, and that's the one I'm more inclined to work
> on personally (if and when I find the time).

I think md integration would be a bit of a mistake, since md is pretty
much only a raid engine at this point in time.  There are also a couple
of other dm cache targets, so it would be nice to have one rather than
three.  This all, however, seems to be under discussion on the dm list.

> So I'm not sure why it'd go in via dm, it seems to me it'd make just as
> much sense for it to go in via Neil Brown's tree. Unless there's
> something I'm missing?

Um, well there's no caching patches in the md tree; it's RAID only.  The
basic caching stuff is all in the dm tree, which is why it's the natural
one.

It seems to me that your stuff is progressing on the dm list, so I don't
really see a need to circumvent the process in the dm tree ... unless
there's some problem I'm not seeing?

James

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 01:18:37PM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 05:49:31PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:32:02PM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > Bcache: a block layer SSD cache
> > > 
> > > Does writethrough and writeback, handles unclean shutdown, and has
> > > various other nifty features. See the wiki and the documentation for
> > > more:
> > > 
> > > http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org
> > > 
> > > Over the Christmas break I finally got the tree into a self contained
> > > state that ought to be suitable for merging; this tree is fairly close
> > > to the previous stable tree that people have been running on production
> > > servers for awhile (and that I've been running on this workstation), 
> > > 
> > > So, I think this is ready for mainline and I'd like to get it in. I
> > > should've tried to push it ages ago, but I was hoping to get in various
> > > block layer cleanups first; I finally deided to work around them in the
> > > meantime since I haven't had time to finish the block layer stuff.
> > > 
> > > Not everything has been addressed since I last posted for review
> > > feedback - notably the closure code was controversial and for now I've
> > > just moved that into drivers/block/bcache (though I've been refactoring
> > > stuff to make it less asynchronous lately; most of that work is in the
> > > testing/dev branches). The bigger issue IMO is the userspace interface -
> > > I'd like to finish the md integration so it doesn't need userspace stuff
> > > for probing/bootup. So, I'd be fine with it going into staging if that's
> > > the consensus, but it's stable tested code.
> > 
> > If it goes into staging, I need a reason why it can't be merged into the
> > "real" part of the kernel, and what will be done to get it there.
> 
> I don't personally see why it can't, but maybe other people will chime
> in. There's certainly still stuff to do (something this size is never
> finished) but I'm not abandoning the code.

Ok, then it should be accepted, care to make it up into a format that
can be applied to someone's tree?  We can't do anything in the current
git-tree format it is in today.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Kent Overstreet]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 05:49:31PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:32:02PM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Bcache: a block layer SSD cache
> > 
> > Does writethrough and writeback, handles unclean shutdown, and has
> > various other nifty features. See the wiki and the documentation for
> > more:
> > 
> > http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org
> > 
> > Over the Christmas break I finally got the tree into a self contained
> > state that ought to be suitable for merging; this tree is fairly close
> > to the previous stable tree that people have been running on production
> > servers for awhile (and that I've been running on this workstation), 
> > 
> > So, I think this is ready for mainline and I'd like to get it in. I
> > should've tried to push it ages ago, but I was hoping to get in various
> > block layer cleanups first; I finally deided to work around them in the
> > meantime since I haven't had time to finish the block layer stuff.
> > 
> > Not everything has been addressed since I last posted for review
> > feedback - notably the closure code was controversial and for now I've
> > just moved that into drivers/block/bcache (though I've been refactoring
> > stuff to make it less asynchronous lately; most of that work is in the
> > testing/dev branches). The bigger issue IMO is the userspace interface -
> > I'd like to finish the md integration so it doesn't need userspace stuff
> > for probing/bootup. So, I'd be fine with it going into staging if that's
> > the consensus, but it's stable tested code.
> 
> If it goes into staging, I need a reason why it can't be merged into the
> "real" part of the kernel, and what will be done to get it there.

I don't personally see why it can't, but maybe other people will chime
in. There's certainly still stuff to do (something this size is never
finished) but I'm not abandoning the code.

> Oh, and you will need to get acks from the people who's symbols you are
> wanting to export, usually staging patches are self-contained.

Yeah, good point. I'll mail out those patches now.

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Kent Overstreet]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:20:56AM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 14:32 -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Bcache: a block layer SSD cache
> > 
> > Does writethrough and writeback, handles unclean shutdown, and has
> > various other nifty features. See the wiki and the documentation for
> > more:
> > 
> > http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org
> > 
> > Over the Christmas break I finally got the tree into a self contained
> > state that ought to be suitable for merging; this tree is fairly close
> > to the previous stable tree that people have been running on production
> > servers for awhile (and that I've been running on this workstation), 
> > 
> > So, I think this is ready for mainline and I'd like to get it in. I
> > should've tried to push it ages ago, but I was hoping to get in various
> > block layer cleanups first; I finally deided to work around them in the
> > meantime since I haven't had time to finish the block layer stuff.
> > 
> > Not everything has been addressed since I last posted for review
> > feedback - notably the closure code was controversial and for now I've
> > just moved that into drivers/block/bcache (though I've been refactoring
> > stuff to make it less asynchronous lately; most of that work is in the
> > testing/dev branches). The bigger issue IMO is the userspace interface -
> > I'd like to finish the md integration so it doesn't need userspace stuff
> > for probing/bootup. So, I'd be fine with it going into staging if that's
> > the consensus, but it's stable tested code.
> > 
> > The code is available at
> > http://evilpiepirate.org/git/linux-bcache.git bcache-for-upstream
> > 
> > This latest branch is on top of v3.8-rc3:
> 
> The guy to merge this is the maintainer in that layer, which is Alasdair
> Kergon.  I know you've been sending patches to the dm-devel list, what's
> the reason you didn't include him in the cc list?  Is there some type of
> political problem in dm?  From reading the list, it looks like your
> patches are being tested and progressing, so what am I missing?

That was merely an oversight - but, bcache is currently just another
block device, it doesn't plug into dm or md. There was some md
integration work started, and that's the one I'm more inclined to work
on personally (if and when I find the time).

So I'm not sure why it'd go in via dm, it seems to me it'd make just as
much sense for it to go in via Neil Brown's tree. Unless there's
something I'm missing?

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[James Bottomley]

On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 14:32 -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Bcache: a block layer SSD cache
> 
> Does writethrough and writeback, handles unclean shutdown, and has
> various other nifty features. See the wiki and the documentation for
> more:
> 
> http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org
> 
> Over the Christmas break I finally got the tree into a self contained
> state that ought to be suitable for merging; this tree is fairly close
> to the previous stable tree that people have been running on production
> servers for awhile (and that I've been running on this workstation), 
> 
> So, I think this is ready for mainline and I'd like to get it in. I
> should've tried to push it ages ago, but I was hoping to get in various
> block layer cleanups first; I finally deided to work around them in the
> meantime since I haven't had time to finish the block layer stuff.
> 
> Not everything has been addressed since I last posted for review
> feedback - notably the closure code was controversial and for now I've
> just moved that into drivers/block/bcache (though I've been refactoring
> stuff to make it less asynchronous lately; most of that work is in the
> testing/dev branches). The bigger issue IMO is the userspace interface -
> I'd like to finish the md integration so it doesn't need userspace stuff
> for probing/bootup. So, I'd be fine with it going into staging if that's
> the consensus, but it's stable tested code.
> 
> The code is available at
> http://evilpiepirate.org/git/linux-bcache.git bcache-for-upstream
> 
> This latest branch is on top of v3.8-rc3:

The guy to merge this is the maintainer in that layer, which is Alasdair
Kergon.  I know you've been sending patches to the dm-devel list, what's
the reason you didn't include him in the cc list?  Is there some type of
political problem in dm?  From reading the list, it looks like your
patches are being tested and progressing, so what am I missing?

James

Re: Bcache v. whatever

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:32:02PM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Bcache: a block layer SSD cache
> 
> Does writethrough and writeback, handles unclean shutdown, and has
> various other nifty features. See the wiki and the documentation for
> more:
> 
> http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org
> 
> Over the Christmas break I finally got the tree into a self contained
> state that ought to be suitable for merging; this tree is fairly close
> to the previous stable tree that people have been running on production
> servers for awhile (and that I've been running on this workstation), 
> 
> So, I think this is ready for mainline and I'd like to get it in. I
> should've tried to push it ages ago, but I was hoping to get in various
> block layer cleanups first; I finally deided to work around them in the
> meantime since I haven't had time to finish the block layer stuff.
> 
> Not everything has been addressed since I last posted for review
> feedback - notably the closure code was controversial and for now I've
> just moved that into drivers/block/bcache (though I've been refactoring
> stuff to make it less asynchronous lately; most of that work is in the
> testing/dev branches). The bigger issue IMO is the userspace interface -
> I'd like to finish the md integration so it doesn't need userspace stuff
> for probing/bootup. So, I'd be fine with it going into staging if that's
> the consensus, but it's stable tested code.

If it goes into staging, I need a reason why it can't be merged into the
"real" part of the kernel, and what will be done to get it there.

Oh, and you will need to get acks from the people who's symbols you are
wanting to export, usually staging patches are self-contained.

thanks,

greg k-h

Bcache v. whatever

[Kent Overstreet]

Bcache: a block layer SSD cache

Does writethrough and writeback, handles unclean shutdown, and has
various other nifty features. See the wiki and the documentation for
more:

http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org

Over the Christmas break I finally got the tree into a self contained
state that ought to be suitable for merging; this tree is fairly close
to the previous stable tree that people have been running on production
servers for awhile (and that I've been running on this workstation), 

So, I think this is ready for mainline and I'd like to get it in. I
should've tried to push it ages ago, but I was hoping to get in various
block layer cleanups first; I finally deided to work around them in the
meantime since I haven't had time to finish the block layer stuff.

Not everything has been addressed since I last posted for review
feedback - notably the closure code was controversial and for now I've
just moved that into drivers/block/bcache (though I've been refactoring
stuff to make it less asynchronous lately; most of that work is in the
testing/dev branches). The bigger issue IMO is the userspace interface -
I'd like to finish the md integration so it doesn't need userspace stuff
for probing/bootup. So, I'd be fine with it going into staging if that's
the consensus, but it's stable tested code.

The code is available at
http://evilpiepirate.org/git/linux-bcache.git bcache-for-upstream

This latest branch is on top of v3.8-rc3:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Overstreet (5):
      Revert "rw_semaphore: remove up/down_read_non_owner"
      Export get_random_int()
      Export blk_fill_rwbs()
      Export __lockdep_no_validate__
      bcache: A block layer cache

 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-block-bcache |  156 ++
 Documentation/bcache.txt                     |  343 ++++
 drivers/char/random.c                        |    1 +
 drivers/md/Kconfig                           |    2 +
 drivers/md/Makefile                          |    1 +
 drivers/md/bcache/Kconfig                    |   41 +
 drivers/md/bcache/Makefile                   |   14 +
 drivers/md/bcache/alloc.c                    |  612 +++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h                   | 1207 +++++++++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/bset.c                     | 1175 ++++++++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/bset.h                     |  378 ++++
 drivers/md/bcache/btree.c                    | 2497 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/btree.h                    |  412 +++++
 drivers/md/bcache/closure.c                  |  347 ++++
 drivers/md/bcache/closure.h                  |  670 +++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/debug.c                    |  550 ++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/debug.h                    |   54 +
 drivers/md/bcache/io.c                       |  383 ++++
 drivers/md/bcache/journal.c                  |  703 ++++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/journal.h                  |  159 ++
 drivers/md/bcache/movinggc.c                 |  245 +++
 drivers/md/bcache/request.c                  | 1370 ++++++++++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/request.h                  |   61 +
 drivers/md/bcache/stats.c                    |  239 +++
 drivers/md/bcache/stats.h                    |   58 +
 drivers/md/bcache/super.c                    | 1952 ++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.c                    |  807 +++++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.h                    |   98 +
 drivers/md/bcache/trace.c                    |   26 +
 drivers/md/bcache/util.c                     |  382 ++++
 drivers/md/bcache/util.h                     |  587 ++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c                |  406 +++++
 include/linux/cgroup_subsys.h                |    6 +
 include/linux/rwsem.h                        |   10 +
 include/linux/sched.h                        |    4 +
 include/trace/events/bcache.h                |  271 +++
 kernel/fork.c                                |    4 +
 kernel/lockdep.c                             |    1 +
 kernel/rwsem.c                               |   16 +
 kernel/trace/blktrace.c                      |    1 +
 40 files changed, 16249 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-block-bcache
 create mode 100644 Documentation/bcache.txt
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/Kconfig
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/Makefile
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/alloc.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/bset.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/bset.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/btree.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/debug.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/debug.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/io.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/journal.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/journal.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/movinggc.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/request.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/request.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/stats.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/stats.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/super.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/trace.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/util.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/util.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
 create mode 100644 include/trace/events/bcache.h