Re: [PATCH 0/6] power_of_2 emulation support for NVMe ZNS devices

[Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>]

Hi Johannes,

On 2022-03-15 15:14, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Please also make sure to support btrfs and not only throw some patches 
> over the fence. Zoned device support in btrfs is complex enough and has 
> quite some special casing vs regular btrfs, which we're working on getting
> rid of. So having non-power-of-2 zone size, would also mean having NPO2

I already made a simple btrfs npo2 poc and it involved mostly changing
the po2 calculation to be based on generic calculation. I understand
that changing the calculations from using log & shifts to division will
incur some performance penalty but I think we can wrap them with helpers
to minimize those impact.

> So having non-power-of-2 zone size, would also mean having NPO2
> block-groups (and thus block-groups not aligned to the stripe size).
>

I agree with your point that we risk not aligning to stripe size when we
move to npo2 zone size which I believe the minimum is 64K (please
correct me if I am wrong). As David Sterba mentioned in his email, we
could agree on some reasonable alignment, which I believe would be the
minimum stripe size of 64k to avoid added complexity to the existing
btrfs zoned support. And it is a much milder constraint that most
devices can naturally adhere compared to the po2 zone size requirement.

> Just thinking of this and knowing I need to support it gives me a 
> headache.
> 
This is definitely not some one off patch that we want upstream and
disappear. As Javier already pointed out, we would be more than happy
help you out here.
> Also please consult the rest of the btrfs developers for thoughts on this.
> After all btrfs has full zoned support (including ZNS, not saying it's 
> perfect) and is also the default FS for at least two Linux distributions.
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> 	Johannes

-- 
Regards,
Pankaj