Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 00:56:20 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@samsung.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, bcrl@kvack.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-aio@kvack.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, selvakuma.s1@samsung.com,
        nj.shetty@samsung.com, javier.gonz@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] zone-append support in aio and io-uring
Message-ID: <20200619075620.GA20581@infradead.org>
References: <CGME20200617172653epcas5p488de50090415eb802e62acc0e23d8812@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
 <1592414619-5646-1-git-send-email-joshi.k@samsung.com>
 <20200618065634.GB24943@infradead.org>
 <20200618175258.GA4141152@test-zns>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200618175258.GA4141152@test-zns>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:22:58PM +0530, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> I was thinking of raw block-access to zone device rather than pristine file
> abstraction.

Why?

> And in that context, semantics, at this point, are unchanged
> (i.e. same as direct writes) while flexibility of async-interface gets
> added.
> Synchronous-writes on single-zone sound fine, but synchronous-appends on
> single-zone do not sound that fine.

Where does synchronous access come into play?

> > What could be a useful addition is a way for O_APPEND/RWF_APPEND writes
> > to report where they actually wrote, as that comes close to Zone Append
> > while still making sense at our usual abstraction level for file I/O.
> 
> Thanks for suggesting this. O and RWF_APPEND may not go well with block
> access as end-of-file will be picked from dev inode.

No, but they go really well with zonefs.

> But perhaps a new
> flag like RWF_ZONE_APPEND can help to transform writes (aio or uring)
> into append without introducing new opcodes.

I don't think this is a good idea.  Zones are a concept for a a very
specific class of zoned devices.  Trying to shoe-horn this into the
byte address files / whole device abstraction not only is ugly
conceptually but also adds the overhead for it to the VFS.

And O_APPEND that returns the written position OTOH makes total sense
at the file level as well and not just for raw zoned devices.