From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F128133296 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:38:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708709897; cv=none; b=eG1CMu8tkRFjJ5GZTSodJRlUogxZCyLnlbcFzKMVbeGXqAJ4sNY+KLV/hta2BQ7T69f90xa/tjqHrRDg88QdBPGLSudpTfNg0EQ/NZNITSa3jDbmNWWG8gxCww9VRSH/SFptD5Hv07FaizrvCApRLwKZOMBR84VeJEZZzuh4Hcw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708709897; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ttrzHMHz6eq+1XGV7AwZlunD2vgDHUr+e4dp54rXgjY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=VitoFyXy7KKBRW4FsG4j+hENcoHOgqQftH1Pg7Vagmr6krjs2hZkOicXqFhcVUMB41R45gVxCtIzQ6vp/yEbmW9vhTBeFLQYfKKcRYPMuDNRNsqjz6fXT+fNMkHa0/9W9GTUCwx+m8E7u+i6Ri/brAUjQY5C57wwShYbkYUtchg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=fWCzy3j4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="fWCzy3j4" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9219C433F1; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:38:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1708709897; bh=ttrzHMHz6eq+1XGV7AwZlunD2vgDHUr+e4dp54rXgjY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fWCzy3j43oA72Js7OrwHVRgXRHqDpU/OiUWIAnfNLP4BpGxH6yhmKKDepanL0LF5p +Hr6f+i5d1ys6ys+Xt27OWltlBz5eXb5VoeJns0Un2uVR/yJxFsB60gtp0SE2pXp++ QrJPOwE2VBL6NhNZqOUynmviaJGIT81lf/S95a7mIfyxnr4zjWmtfX6Z54G9Z1Lxg1 9wK0zLhPfiW/tf2SW4F1OvvFjTS21VZjiUr9dcgMBY68/Xq6bV1rENR70IW4RoG31n JGNeidQ/3gk953LC/C9a24Fywzf1hmWxQmHd6IqKU+dXZgFqdw1Nkv9BkAzs9+lVmk BXjrlrwI98duw== Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:38:15 -0800 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Matias =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rling?= Cc: Juhyung Park , Niklas Cassel , Damien Le Moal , daehojeong@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Matias =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rling?= Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 3/3 v2] f2fs: kill zone-capacity support Message-ID: References: <20240207005105.3744811-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <20240207005105.3744811-3-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <65e03e4d-b7ef-27f9-2651-eac372f17a9b@bjorling.me> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <65e03e4d-b7ef-27f9-2651-eac372f17a9b@bjorling.me> On 02/22, Matias Bjørling wrote: > On 21-02-2024 18:27, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > > Doesn't this break practically all ZNS NVMe devices? > > > > Yes, so here I'm in questioning who is really using w/ zone capacity. If there's > > no user complaining, I'd like to deprecate this, since this adds code complexity > > and unnecessary checks. > > > > Hi Jaegeuk, > > I like to make a couple of points to hopefully keep the support in a little > while longer. > > - NVMe-based zone devices continue to be developed with the pow2 zone size > and zone size != zone cap features. There was some divergence in the > first-gen drives. However, all the second-gen drives I know of are > implemented with those features in mind. > > - A very active community is doing work using f2fs, and many of those > members are working with the ZN540s device (which exposes a pow2 zone size). > > - For drives with a capacity of less than 16TiB, f2fs is an excellent file > system to use and is really useful for various use cases. We're using the > f2fs daily for a couple of our workloads. > > Work is ongoing on btrfs and XFS to support zoned storage devices, but they > have yet to be through the trenches as much as f2fs has been with its zone > support. So it would be great to have f2fs continue to support the pow2 zone > sizes, as it is a valuable feature for the currently used and second-gen > drives that have been released or are soon becoming available. > > If there is a performance concern with the feature re: ZUFS, maybe the pow2 > implementation could be slightly more computationally expensive, as the > feature, anyway, typically is used on more beefy systems. Thanks, Matias for the background. It seems to be fair for keeping this for a while tho, IMO, non-pow2 could address both parties. > > Regards, > Matias