Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/4] add simple copy support

Javier González
2021-04-13T18:26:41Z

On 13.04.2021 18:38, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
>On 4/11/2021 10:26 PM, Javier González wrote:
>>On 11.04.2021 12:10, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>>>
>>>On 4/10/2021 9:32 AM, Javier González wrote:
>>>>>On 10 Apr 2021, at 02.30, Chaitanya Kulkarni
>>>>><Chaitanya.Kulkarni@wdc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>﻿On 4/9/21 17:22, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>>>>>>>On 2/19/2021 2:45 PM, SelvaKumar S wrote:
>>>>>>>This patchset tries to add support for TP4065a ("Simple
>>>>>>>Copy Command"),
>>>>>>>v2020.05.04 ("Ratified")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Specification can be found in following link.
>>>>>>>https://nvmexpress.org/wp-content/uploads/NVM-Express-1.4-Ratified-TPs-1.zip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Simple copy command is a copy offloading operation and is
>>>>>>>used to copy
>>>>>>>multiple contiguous ranges (source_ranges) of LBA's to a
>>>>>>>single destination
>>>>>>>LBA within the device reducing traffic between host and device.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This implementation doesn't add native copy offload
>>>>>>>support for stacked
>>>>>>>devices rather copy offload is done through emulation. Possible use
>>>>>>>cases are F2FS gc and BTRFS relocation/balance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>*blkdev_issue_copy* takes source bdev, no of sources,
>>>>>>>array of source
>>>>>>>ranges (in sectors), destination bdev and destination
>>>>>>>offset(in sectors).
>>>>>>>If both source and destination block devices are same and
>>>>>>>copy_offload = 1,
>>>>>>>then copy is done through native copy offloading. Copy
>>>>>>>emulation is used
>>>>>>>in other cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As SCSI XCOPY can take two different block devices and no
>>>>>>>of source range is
>>>>>>>equal to 1, this interface can be extended in future to
>>>>>>>support SCSI XCOPY.
>>>>>>Any idea why this TP wasn't designed for copy offload between 2
>>>>>>different namespaces in the same controller ?
>>>>>Yes, it was the first attempt so to keep it simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>Further work is needed to add incremental TP so that we can
>>>>>also do a copy
>>>>>between the name-spaces of same controller (if we can't
>>>>>already) and to the
>>>>>namespaces that belongs to the different controller.
>>>>>
>>>>>>And a simple copy will be the case where the src_nsid == dst_nsid ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also why there are multiple source ranges and only one dst range ? We
>>>>>>could add a bit to indicate if this range is src or dst..
>>>>One of the target use cases was ZNS in order to avoid fabric
>>>>transfers during host GC. You can see how this plays well with
>>>>several zone ranges and a single zone destination.
>>>>
>>>>If we start getting support in Linux through the different past
>>>>copy offload efforts, I’m sure we can extend this TP in the
>>>>future.
>>>
>>>But the "copy" command IMO is more general than the ZNS GC case,
>>>that can be a private case of copy, isn't it ?
>>
>>It applies to any namespace type, so yes. I just wanted to give you the
>>background for the current "simple" scope through one of the use cases
>>that was in mind.
>>
>>>We can get a big benefit of offloading the data copy from one ns
>>>to another in the same controller and even in different
>>>controllers in the same subsystem.
>>
>>Definitely.
>>
>>>
>>>Do you think the extension should be to "copy" command or to
>>>create a new command "x_copy" for copying to different destination
>>>ns ?
>>
>>I believe there is space for extensions to simple copy. But given the
>>experience with XCOPY, I can imagine that changes will be incremental,
>>based on very specific use cases.
>>
>>I think getting support upstream and bringing deployed cases is a very
>>good start.
>
>Copying data (files) within the controller/subsystem from ns_A to ns_B
>using NVMf will reduce network BW and memory BW in the host server.
>
>This feature is well known and the use case is well known.

Definitely.

>
>The question whether we implement it in vendor specific manner of we
>add it to the specification.
>
>I prefer adding it to the spec :)

Agree. Let's build up on top of Simple Copy. We can talk about it
offline in the context of the NVMe TWG.