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:   Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:45:14 +0530
From:   Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@samsung.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     axboe@kernel.dk, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, bcrl@kvack.org,
        asml.silence@gmail.com, Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, mb@lightnvm.io,
        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, Arnav Dawn <a.dawn@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] fs,block: Introduce RWF_ZONE_APPEND and handling
 in direct IO path
Message-ID: <20200626211514.GA24762@test-zns>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200626085846.GA24962@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
        boundary="----LJmyoXw8O9.Ba._wAgamKaSQQ_oizdakYzSktnuewvRJuSc2=_9f048_"
CMS-TYPE: 105P
References: <1593105349-19270-1-git-send-email-joshi.k@samsung.com>
        <CGME20200625171834epcas5p226a24dfcb84cfa83fe29a2bd17795d85@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
        <1593105349-19270-2-git-send-email-joshi.k@samsung.com>
        <20200626085846.GA24962@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

------LJmyoXw8O9.Ba._wAgamKaSQQ_oizdakYzSktnuewvRJuSc2=_9f048_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:58:46AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>To restate my previous NAK:
>
>A low-level protocol detail like RWF_ZONE_APPEND has absolutely no
>business being exposed in the Linux file system interface.
>
>And as mentioned before I think the idea of returning the actual
>position written for O_APPEND writes totally makes sense, and actually
>is generalizable to all files.  Together with zonefs that gives you a
>perfect interface for zone append.
>
>On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:45:48PM +0530, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
>> Introduce RWF_ZONE_APPEND flag to represent zone-append.
>
>And no one but us select few even know what zone append is, nevermind
>what the detailed semantics are.  If you add a userspace API you need
>to very clearly document the semantics inluding errors and corner cases.

For block IO path (which is the scope of this patchset) there is no
probelm in using RWF_APPEND for zone-append, because it does not do
anything for block device. We can use that, avoiding introduction of
RWF_ZONE_APPEND in user-space.

In kernel, will it be fine to keep IOCB_ZONE_APPEND apart from
IOCB_APPEND? Reason being, this can help to isolate the code meant only
for zone-append from the one that is already present for conventional
append.

Snippet from quick reference -

static inline int kiocb_set_rw_flags(struct kiocb *ki, rwf_t flags)
        ki->ki_flags |= (IOCB_DSYNC | IOCB_SYNC);
        if (flags & RWF_APPEND)
                ki->ki_flags |= IOCB_APPEND;
+       if (flags & RWF_ZONE_APPEND) {
+               /* currently support block device only */
+               umode_t mode = file_inode(ki->ki_filp)->i_mode;
+
+               if (!(S_ISBLK(mode)))
+                       return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+               ki->ki_flags |= IOCB_ZONE_APPEND;
+       }


As for file I/O in future, I see a potential problem with RWF_APPEND.
In io_uring, zone-append requires bit of pre/post processing, which
ideally should be done only for zone-append case. A ZoneFS file using
RWF_APPEND as a mean to invoke zone-append vs a regular file (hosted on
some other FS) requiring conventional RWF_APPEND - both will execute
that processing.
Is there a good way to differentiate ZoneFS file from another file which
only wants use conventional file-append?

------LJmyoXw8O9.Ba._wAgamKaSQQ_oizdakYzSktnuewvRJuSc2=_9f048_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


------LJmyoXw8O9.Ba._wAgamKaSQQ_oizdakYzSktnuewvRJuSc2=_9f048_--