From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: allow ANA support to be independent of native multipathing Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:49:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20181116094947.GA19296@lst.de> References: <20181112215323.GA7983@redhat.com> <20181113161838.GC9827@localhost.localdomain> <20181113180008.GA12513@redhat.com> <20181114053837.GA15086@redhat.com> <30cf7af7-8826-55bd-e39a-4f81ed032f6d@suse.de> <20181114174746.GA18526@redhat.com> <87c931e5-4ac9-1795-8d40-cc5541d3ebcf@suse.de> <20181115174605.GA19782@redhat.com> <20181116091458.GA17267@lst.de> <37098edd-4dea-b58f-bca6-3be9af8ec4ee@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <37098edd-4dea-b58f-bca6-3be9af8ec4ee@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Mike Snitzer , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Keith Busch , Sagi Grimberg , axboe@kernel.dk, Martin Wilck , lijie , xose.vazquez@gmail.com, chengjike.cheng@huawei.com, shenhong09@huawei.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, wangzhoumengjian@huawei.com, christophe.varoqui@opensvc.com, bmarzins@redhat.com, sschremm@netapp.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:40:40AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >>> Introduce ability to always re-read ANA log page as required due to ANA >>> error and make current ANA state available via sysfs -- even if native >>> multipathing is disabled on the host (e.g. nvme_core.multipath=N). >> >> The first part I could see, but I still want to make it conditional >> in some way as nvme is going into deeply embedded setups, and I don't >> want to carry the weight of the ANA code around for everyone. >> > Can you clarify this a bit? > We _do_ have the NVME multipath config option to deconfigure the whole > thing during compile time; that isn't influenced with this patch. > So are you worried about the size of the ANA implementation itself? > Or are you worried about the size of the ANA structures? I just see the next step of wanting to move ANA code into the core which is implied above. > >> The second I fundamentally disagree with. And even if you found agreement >> it would have to be in a separate patch as it is a separate feature. >> > Why? Where's the problem with re-reading the ANA log pages if we get an > event indicating that we should? "second" here means the sysfs file. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:49:47 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] nvme: allow ANA support to be independent of native multipathing In-Reply-To: <37098edd-4dea-b58f-bca6-3be9af8ec4ee@suse.de> References: <20181112215323.GA7983@redhat.com> <20181113161838.GC9827@localhost.localdomain> <20181113180008.GA12513@redhat.com> <20181114053837.GA15086@redhat.com> <30cf7af7-8826-55bd-e39a-4f81ed032f6d@suse.de> <20181114174746.GA18526@redhat.com> <87c931e5-4ac9-1795-8d40-cc5541d3ebcf@suse.de> <20181115174605.GA19782@redhat.com> <20181116091458.GA17267@lst.de> <37098edd-4dea-b58f-bca6-3be9af8ec4ee@suse.de> Message-ID: <20181116094947.GA19296@lst.de> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018@10:40:40AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >>> Introduce ability to always re-read ANA log page as required due to ANA >>> error and make current ANA state available via sysfs -- even if native >>> multipathing is disabled on the host (e.g. nvme_core.multipath=N). >> >> The first part I could see, but I still want to make it conditional >> in some way as nvme is going into deeply embedded setups, and I don't >> want to carry the weight of the ANA code around for everyone. >> > Can you clarify this a bit? > We _do_ have the NVME multipath config option to deconfigure the whole > thing during compile time; that isn't influenced with this patch. > So are you worried about the size of the ANA implementation itself? > Or are you worried about the size of the ANA structures? I just see the next step of wanting to move ANA code into the core which is implied above. > >> The second I fundamentally disagree with. And even if you found agreement >> it would have to be in a separate patch as it is a separate feature. >> > Why? Where's the problem with re-reading the ANA log pages if we get an > event indicating that we should? "second" here means the sysfs file.