Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Cc:     linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com, axboe@kernel.dk, tytso@mit.edu,
        adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, Chaitanya.Kulkarni@wdc.com,
        darrick.wong@oracle.com, ming.lei@redhat.com, osandov@fb.com,
        jthumshirn@suse.de, minwoo.im.dev@gmail.com, damien.lemoal@wdc.com,
        andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com, hare@suse.com, tj@kernel.org,
        ajay.joshi@wdc.com, sagi@grimberg.me, dsterba@suse.com,
        bvanassche@acm.org, dhowells@redhat.com, asml.silence@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH block v2 2/3] block: Add support for REQ_NOZERO flag
From:   "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Organization: Oracle Corporation
References: <157917805422.88675.6477661554332322975.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
        <157917816325.88675.16481772163916741596.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 01:14:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <157917816325.88675.16481772163916741596.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
        (Kirill Tkhai's message of "Thu, 16 Jan 2020 15:36:03 +0300")
Message-ID: <yq14kwpibf6.fsf@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1.92 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


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