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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).