From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Niklas Cassel <nks@flawful.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
Matias Bjorling <mb@lightnvm.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] block: Add support for the zone capacity concept
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 10:58:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZEbDWqdU8hXVLYhD@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230424060139.GA9805@lst.de>
On 04/24, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 07:25:33AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > >> for allocating blocks. This is a resource management issue.
> > >
> > > Ok, so it seems I overlooked there might be something in the zone allocation
> > > policy. So, f2fs already manages 6 open zones by design.
> >
> > Yes, so as long as the device allows for at least 6 active zones, there are no
> > issues with f2fs.
>
> I don't think it's quite as rosy, because f2fs can still schedule
> I/O to the old zone after already scheduling I/O to a new zone for
> any of these 6 slots. It'll need code to wait for all I/O to the old
> zone to finish first, similar to btrfs.
F2FS should serialize all the writes across 6 active open zones. If not, I think
it's a bug. The problem here is 1) open zone#1 through zone #6, 2) allocate all
blocks in zone #1, 3) submit all writes in zone #1, 4) allocate blocks in zone
#7, 5) submit all writes in zone #7, and so on.
In this scenario, I'm asking why F2FS needs to wait for entire write completion
between 3) and 4), which will impact performance a lot since 4) blocks syscalls.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-24 17:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-18 22:39 [PATCH v2 00/11] mq-deadline: Improve support for zoned block devices Bart Van Assche
2023-04-18 22:39 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] block: Simplify blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock() Bart Van Assche
2023-04-19 4:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-18 22:39 ` [PATCH v2 02/11] block: Micro-optimize blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock() Bart Van Assche
2023-04-19 4:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-19 18:30 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-04-20 5:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-18 22:39 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] block: Introduce blk_rq_is_seq_zoned_write() Bart Van Assche
2023-04-19 4:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-19 21:12 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-04-20 1:03 ` Damien Le Moal
2023-04-20 5:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-18 22:39 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] block: mq-deadline: Simplify deadline_skip_seq_writes() Bart Van Assche
2023-04-19 4:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-18 22:39 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] block: mq-deadline: Improve deadline_skip_seq_writes() Bart Van Assche
2023-04-18 22:39 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] block: mq-deadline: Disable head insertion for zoned writes Bart Van Assche
2023-04-19 4:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-19 22:43 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-04-20 5:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-20 17:00 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-04-24 7:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-18 22:39 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] block: mq-deadline: Preserve write streams for all device types Bart Van Assche
2023-04-18 22:39 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] block: mq-deadline: Fix a race condition related to zoned writes Bart Van Assche
2023-04-19 5:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-19 18:46 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-04-20 1:00 ` Damien Le Moal
2023-04-18 22:40 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] block: mq-deadline: Handle requeued requests correctly Bart Van Assche
2023-04-19 5:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-19 23:01 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-04-20 1:07 ` Damien Le Moal
2023-04-18 22:40 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] block: Add support for the zone capacity concept Bart Van Assche
2023-04-20 9:23 ` Niklas Cassel
2023-04-20 17:12 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-04-20 22:00 ` Damien Le Moal
2023-04-20 22:51 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-04-20 23:37 ` Damien Le Moal
2023-04-20 23:44 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-04-20 23:53 ` Damien Le Moal
2023-04-21 0:29 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-04-21 1:52 ` Damien Le Moal
2023-04-21 20:15 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-04-21 22:25 ` Damien Le Moal
2023-04-24 6:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-24 17:58 ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2023-04-24 19:05 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-04-25 13:38 ` Damien Le Moal
2023-04-24 17:48 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-04-18 22:40 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] block: mq-deadline: Respect the active zone limit Bart Van Assche
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=ZEbDWqdU8hXVLYhD@google.com \
--to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mb@lightnvm.io \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=nks@flawful.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: link
Be 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.