Re: [PATCH block v2 2/3] block: Add support for REQ_NOZERO flag

Martin K. Petersen
2020-01-21T06:14:33Z

Kirill,

> + if (flags & BLKDEV_ZERO_NOUNMAP)
> + req_flags |= REQ_NOUNMAP;
> + if (flags & BLKDEV_ZERO_ALLOCATE)
> + req_flags |= REQ_NOZERO|REQ_NOUNMAP;

I find there is some dissonance between using BLKDEV_ZERO_ALLOCATE to
describe this operation in one case and REQ_NOZERO in the other.

I understand why not zeroing is important in your case. However, I think
the allocation aspect is semantically more important. Also, in the case
of SCSI, the allocated blocks will typically appear zeroed. So from that
perspective REQ_NOZERO doesn't really make sense. I would really prefer
to use REQ_ALLOCATE to describe this operation. I agree that "do not
write every block" is important too. I just don't have a good suggestion
for how to express that as an additional qualifier to REQ_ALLOCATE_?.

Also, adding to the confusion: In the context of SCSI, ANCHOR requires
UNMAP. So my head hurts a bit when I read REQ_NOZERO|REQ_NOUNMAP and
have to translate that into ANCHOR|UNMAP.

Longer term, I think we should consider introducing REQ_OP_SINGLE_RANGE
or something like that as an umbrella operation that can be used to
describe zeroing, allocating, and other things that operate on a single
LBA range with no payload. Thus removing both the writiness and the
zeroness from the existing REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES conduit.

Naming issues aside, your patch looks fine. I'll try to rebase my SCSI
patches on top of your series to see how things fit.

--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering