Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] Introduce provisioning primitives for thinly provisioned storage

From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Daniil Lunev <dlunev@google.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@chromium.org>,
	"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@google.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@google.com>,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	dm-devel@redhat.com, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Evan Green <evgreen@google.com>,
	Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] Introduce provisioning primitives for thinly provisioned storage
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 11:08:43 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yyso+9ChDJQUf9B1@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAKderNcHpbBqWqqd5-WuKLRCQQUt7a_4D4ti4gy15+fKGK0vQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 20 2022 at  5:48P -0400,
Daniil Lunev <dlunev@google.com> wrote:

> > There is no such thing as WRITE UNAVAILABLE in NVMe.
> Apologize, that is WRITE UNCORRECTABLE. Chapter 3.2.7 of
> NVM Express NVM Command Set Specification 1.0b
> 
> > That being siad you still haven't actually explained what problem
> > you're even trying to solve.
> 
> The specific problem is the following:
> * There is an thinpool over a physical device
> * There are multiple logical volumes over the thin pool
> * Each logical volume has an independent file system and an
>   independent application running over it
> * Each application is potentially allowed to consume the entirety
>   of the disk space - there is no strict size limit for application
> * Applications need to pre-allocate space sometime, for which
>   they use fallocate. Once the operation succeeded, the application
>   assumed the space is guaranteed to be there for it.
> * Since filesystems on the volumes are independent, filesystem
>   level enforcement of size constraints is impossible and the only
>   common level is the thin pool, thus, each fallocate has to find its
>   representation in thin pool one way or another - otherwise you
>   may end up in the situation, where FS thinks it has allocated space
>   but when it tries to actually write it, the thin pool is already
>   exhausted.
> * Hole-Punching fallocate will not reach the thin pool, so the only
>   solution presently is zero-writing pre-allocate.
> * Not all storage devices support zero-writing efficiently - apart
>   from NVMe being or not being capable of doing efficient write
>   zero - changing which is easier said than done, and would take
>   years - there are also other types of storage devices that do not
>   have WRITE ZERO capability in the first place or have it in a
>   peculiar way. And adding custom WRITE ZERO to LVM would be
>   arguably a much bigger hack.
> * Thus, a provisioning block operation allows an interface specific
>   operation that guarantees the presence of the block in the
>   mapped space. LVM Thin-pool itself is the primary target for our
>   use case but the argument is that this operation maps well to
>   other interfaces which allow thinly provisioned units.

Thanks for this overview. Should help level-set others.

Adding fallocate support has been a long-standing dm-thin TODO item
for me. I just never got around to it. So thanks to Sarthak, you and
anyone else who had a hand in developing this.

I had a look at the DM thin implementation and it looks pretty simple
(doesn't require a thin-metadata change, etc).  I'll look closer at
the broader implementation (block, etc) but I'm encouraged by what I'm
seeing.

Mike

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization