Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221102053058.21021-1-lijiaming3@xiaomi.corp-partner.google.com>
 <Y2IuhG8nBJj0F1fd@infradead.org> <c5948336-19fc-ddd3-bc34-aba2d1b02302@gmail.com>
 <878ea44b-9616-e7d0-661c-82eae23b1b35@bjorling.me>
In-Reply-To: <878ea44b-9616-e7d0-661c-82eae23b1b35@bjorling.me>
From:   Juhyung Park <qkrwngud825@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 5 Nov 2022 14:22:08 +0900
Message-ID: <CAD14+f3i04piBzjuh9DFnbtbMmgqDLh3JMnTYM5ej=23rxjdtg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/4] Implement File-Based optimization functionality
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Matias_Bj=C3=B8rling?= <m@bjorling.me>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Jiaming Li <lijiaming3@xiaomi.corp-partner.google.com>,
        alim.akhtar@samsung.com, avri.altman@wdc.com, bvanassche@acm.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        lijiaming3 <lijiaming3@xiaomi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 9:37 PM Matias Bj=C3=B8rling <m@bjorling.me> wrote:
>
> On 03/11/2022 07.11, Juhyung Park wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Is the idea really an utter madness? Majority of regular files that may
> > be of interest from the perspective of UFS aren't reflinked or
> > snapshotted (let alone the lack of support from ext4 or f2fs).
> >
> > Device-side fragmentation is a real issue [1] and it makes more than
> > enough sense to defrag LBAs of interests to improve performance. This
> > was long overdue, unless the block interface itself changes somehow.
>
> There are ongoing work with UFS to extend the block interface with
> zones. This approach eliminates the mismatch between the device-side
> mapping and host-side mapping and lets the host and device collaborate
> on the data placement.
>
> >
> > The question is how to implement it correctly without creating a mess
> > with mismatched/outdated LBAs as you've mentioned, preferably through
> > file-system's integration: If the LBAs in questions are indeed
> > reflinked, how do we handle it?, If the LBAs are moved/invalidated from
> > defrag or GC, how do we make sure that UFS is up-to-date?, etc.
>
> If using zoned UFS, the file-system can use zones for LBA tracking,
> eliminating the mismatched/outdated LBA issue. f2fs already supports
> this approach (works today with SMR HDDs and ZNS SSDs). It'll extend to
> UFS when zone support is added/implemented.
>

More reasons to have this functionality integrated with the
file-system instead of allowing users to specify random LBA ranges.