Re: [RFC PATCH] block: xfs: dm thin: train XFS to give up on retrying IO if thinp is out of space

Eric Sandeen
2015-07-22T16:28:12Z

On 7/22/15 8:34 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21 2015 at 10:37pm -0400,
> Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 09:40:29PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>
>>> I'm open to considering alternative interfaces for getting you the info
>>> you need. I just don't have a great sense for what mechanism you'd like
>>> to use. Do we invent a new block device operations table method that
>>> sets values in a 'struct no_space_strategy' passed in to the
>>> blockdevice?
>>
>> It's long been frowned on having the filesystems dig into block
>> device structures. We have lots of wrapper functions for getting
>> information from or performing operations on block devices. (e.g.
>> bdev_read_only(), bdev_get_queue(), blkdev_issue_flush(),
>> blkdev_issue_zeroout(), etc) and so I think this is the pattern we'd
>> need to follow. If we do that - bdev_get_nospace_strategy() - then
>> how that information gets to the filesystem is completely opaque
>> at the fs level, and the block layer can implement it in whatever
>> way is considered sane...
>>
>> And, realistically, all we really need returned is a enum to tell us
>> how the bdev behaves on enospc:
>> - bdev fails fast, (i.e. immediate ENOSPC)
>> - bdev fails slow, (i.e. queue for some time, then ENOSPC)
>> - bdev never fails (i.e. queue forever)
>> - bdev doesn't support this (i.e. EOPNOTSUPP)

I'm not sure how this is more useful than the bdev simply responding to
a query of "should we keep trying IOs?"

IOWS do we really care if it's failing fast or slow, vs. simply knowing
whether it has now permanently failed?

So rather than "bdev_get_nospace_strategy" it seems like all we need
to know is "bdev_has_failed" - do we really care about the details?

> This 'struct no_space_strategy' would be invented purely for
> informational purposes for upper layers' benefit -- I don't consider it
> a "block device structure" it the traditional sense.
>
> I was thinking upper layers would like to know the actual timeout value
> for the "fails slow" case. As such the 'struct no_space_strategy' would
> have the enum and the timeout. And would be returned with a call:
> bdev_get_nospace_strategy(bdev, &no_space_strategy)

Asking for the timeout value seems to add complexity. It could change after
we ask, and knowing it now requires another layer to be handling timeouts...

Thanks,
-Eric