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;
From:   "Javier =?utf-8?B?R29uesOhbGV6?=" <javier@javigon.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Dec 2020 20:24:53 +0100
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        SelvaKumar S <selvakuma.s1@samsung.com>,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, kbusch@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk,
        damien.lemoal@wdc.com, sagi@grimberg.me,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com, selvajove@gmail.com,
        nj.shetty@samsung.com, joshi.k@samsung.com,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] add simple copy support
Message-ID: <20201207192453.vc6clbdhz73hzs7l@mpHalley>
References: <CGME20201204094719epcas5p23b3c41223897de3840f92ae3c229cda5@epcas5p2.samsung.com>
 <20201204094659.12732-1-selvakuma.s1@samsung.com>
 <20201207141123.GC31159@lst.de>
 <01fe46ac-16a5-d4db-f23d-07a03d3935f3@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01fe46ac-16a5-d4db-f23d-07a03d3935f3@suse.de>
Precedence: bulk

On 07.12.2020 15:56, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>On 12/7/20 3:11 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>So, I'm really worried about:
>>
>>  a) a good use case.  GC in f2fs or btrfs seem like good use cases, as
>>     does accelating dm-kcopyd.  I agree with Damien that lifting dm-kcopyd
>>     to common code would also be really nice.  I'm not 100% sure it should
>>     be a requirement, but it sure would be nice to have
>>     I don't think just adding an ioctl is enough of a use case for complex
>>     kernel infrastructure.
>>  b) We had a bunch of different attempts at SCSI XCOPY support form IIRC
>>     Martin, Bart and Mikulas.  I think we need to pull them into this
>>     discussion, and make sure whatever we do covers the SCSI needs.
>>
>And we shouldn't forget that the main issue which killed all previous 
>implementations was a missing QoS guarantee.
>It's nice to have simply copy, but if the implementation is _slower_ 
>than doing it by hand from the OS there is very little point in even 
>attempting to do so.
>I can't see any provisions for that in the TPAR, leading me to the 
>assumption that NVMe simple copy will suffer from the same issue.
>
>So if we can't address this I guess this attempt will fail, too.

Good point. We can share some performance data on how Simple Copy scales
in terms of bw / latency and the CPU usage. Do you have anything else in
mind?