Re: [PATCH v2] block: ublk: enable zoned storage support
From: Andreas Hindborg
Date: Thu Mar 02 2023 - 02:50:14 EST
Hi Ming,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 09:05:01PM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> Add zoned storage support to ublk: report_zones and operations:
>> - REQ_OP_ZONE_OPEN
>> - REQ_OP_ZONE_CLOSE
>> - REQ_OP_ZONE_FINISH
>> - REQ_OP_ZONE_RESET
>>
>> This allows implementation of zoned storage devices in user space. An
>> example user space implementation based on ubdsrv is available [1].
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/metaspace/ubdsrv/commit/14a2b708f74f70cfecb076d92e680dc718cc1f6d
>
> As I suggested, please write one simple & clean zoned target for verifying
> the interface, and better to not add to tgt_null.c.
For ubdsrv, I understand that you prefer to reimplement null and loop targets for
zoned storage. I don't understand why you think this is a good idea,
since we will have massive code duplication. This would be comparable to
having a separate null_blk driver for zoned storage. Am I understanding
you correctly?
Anyway, I think we can discuss the kernel patch even though the ubdsrv
implementation is not a separate target yet? The code would be almost
identical, it would just live in a separate translation unit.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes since v1:
>> - Fixed conditional compilation bug
>> - Refactored to collect conditional code additions together
>> - Fixed style errors
>> - Zero stack allocated value used for zone report
>>
>> Reported-by: Niklas Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@xxxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202302250222.XOrw9j6z-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20230224125950.214779-1-nmi@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> drivers/block/ublk_drv.c | 150 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h | 18 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 162 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
>> index 6368b56eacf1..37e516903867 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>> #include <linux/major.h>
>> #include <linux/wait.h>
>> #include <linux/blkdev.h>
>> +#include <linux/blkzoned.h>
>> #include <linux/init.h>
>> #include <linux/swap.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>> @@ -51,10 +52,12 @@
>> | UBLK_F_URING_CMD_COMP_IN_TASK \
>> | UBLK_F_NEED_GET_DATA \
>> | UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY \
>> - | UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE)
>> + | UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE \
>> + | UBLK_F_ZONED)
>>
>> /* All UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_* should be included here */
>> -#define UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_ALL (UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_BASIC | UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_DISCARD)
>> +#define UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_ALL (UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_BASIC | UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_DISCARD \
>> + | UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_ZONED)
>>
>> struct ublk_rq_data {
>> struct llist_node node;
>> @@ -187,6 +190,98 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(ublk_ctl_mutex);
>>
>> static struct miscdevice ublk_misc;
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED
>> +static void ublk_set_nr_zones(struct ublk_device *ub)
>> +{
>> + const struct ublk_param_basic *p = &ub->params.basic;
>> +
>> + if (ub->dev_info.flags & UBLK_F_ZONED && p->chunk_sectors)
>> + ub->ub_disk->nr_zones = p->dev_sectors / p->chunk_sectors;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void ublk_dev_param_zoned_apply(struct ublk_device *ub)
>> +{
>> + const struct ublk_param_zoned *p = &ub->params.zoned;
>> +
>> + if (ub->dev_info.flags & UBLK_F_ZONED) {
>> + disk_set_max_active_zones(ub->ub_disk, p->max_active_zones);
>> + disk_set_max_open_zones(ub->ub_disk, p->max_open_zones);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int ublk_revalidate_disk_zones(struct gendisk *disk)
>> +{
>> + return blk_revalidate_disk_zones(disk, NULL);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int ublk_report_zones(struct gendisk *disk, sector_t sector,
>> + unsigned int nr_zones, report_zones_cb cb,
>> + void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct ublk_device *ub;
>> + unsigned int zone_size;
>> + unsigned int first_zone;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + ub = disk->private_data;
>> +
>> + if (!(ub->dev_info.flags & UBLK_F_ZONED))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + zone_size = disk->queue->limits.chunk_sectors;
>> + first_zone = sector >> ilog2(zone_size);
>> + nr_zones = min(ub->ub_disk->nr_zones - first_zone, nr_zones);
>> +
>> + for (unsigned int i = 0; i < nr_zones; i++) {
>
> The local variable 'i' needs to be declared in the front part
> of this function body.
Ok.
>
>> + struct request *req;
>> + blk_status_t status;
>> + struct blk_zone info = {0};
>> +
>> + req = blk_mq_alloc_request(disk->queue, REQ_OP_DRV_IN, 0);
>> +
>> + if (IS_ERR(req)) {
>> + ret = PTR_ERR(req);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + req->__sector = sector;
>
> Why is req->__sector set?
I use it to carry information about the first zone of the report request.
>
>> +
>> + ret = blk_rq_map_kern(disk->queue, req, &info, sizeof(info),
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> +
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + status = blk_execute_rq(req, 0);
>> + ret = blk_status_to_errno(status);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + blk_mq_free_request(req);
>> +
>> + ret = cb(&info, i, data);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + /* A zero length zone means don't ask for more zones */
>> + if (!info.len) {
>> + nr_zones = i;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + sector += zone_size;
>> + }
>
> I'd suggest to report as many as possible zones in one command, and
> the dev_info.max_io_buf_bytes is the max allowed buffer size for one
> command, please refer to nvme_ns_report_zones().
I agree about fetching more zones. However, it is no good to fetch up to
a max, since the requested zone report may less than max. I was
considering overloading req->__data_len and iod->nr_sectors to convey
the number of requested zones. What do you think about that?
>
> Also we are going to extend ublk in the multiple LUN/NS style, and I
> guess that won't be one issue since ->report_zones() is always done on
> disk level, right?
Yes, that should be fine.
>
>> + ret = nr_zones;
>> +
>> + out:
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +void ublk_set_nr_zones(struct ublk_device *ub);
>> +void ublk_dev_param_zoned_apply(struct ublk_device *ub);
>> +int ublk_revalidate_disk_zones(struct gendisk *disk);
>> +#endif
>> +
>> static void ublk_dev_param_basic_apply(struct ublk_device *ub)
>> {
>> struct request_queue *q = ub->ub_disk->queue;
>> @@ -212,6 +307,9 @@ static void ublk_dev_param_basic_apply(struct ublk_device *ub)
>> set_disk_ro(ub->ub_disk, true);
>>
>> set_capacity(ub->ub_disk, p->dev_sectors);
>> +
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED))
>> + ublk_set_nr_zones(ub);
>> }
>>
>> static void ublk_dev_param_discard_apply(struct ublk_device *ub)
>> @@ -268,6 +366,9 @@ static int ublk_apply_params(struct ublk_device *ub)
>> if (ub->params.types & UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_DISCARD)
>> ublk_dev_param_discard_apply(ub);
>>
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED) && (ub->params.types & UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_ZONED))
>> + ublk_dev_param_zoned_apply(ub);
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -361,9 +462,13 @@ static void ublk_free_disk(struct gendisk *disk)
>> put_device(&ub->cdev_dev);
>> }
>>
>> +
>> static const struct block_device_operations ub_fops = {
>> - .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> - .free_disk = ublk_free_disk,
>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> + .free_disk = ublk_free_disk,
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED
>> + .report_zones = ublk_report_zones,
>> +#endif
>
> Define one null ublk_report_zones in #else branch of the above #ifdef, then we
> can save one #ifdef.
I would have to define it as a null pointer in the #else case then?
>
>> };
>>
>> #define UBLK_MAX_PIN_PAGES 32
>> @@ -499,7 +604,7 @@ static int ublk_unmap_io(const struct ublk_queue *ubq,
>> {
>> const unsigned int rq_bytes = blk_rq_bytes(req);
>>
>> - if (req_op(req) == REQ_OP_READ && ublk_rq_has_data(req)) {
>> + if ((req_op(req) == REQ_OP_READ || req_op(req) == REQ_OP_DRV_IN) && ublk_rq_has_data(req)) {
>> struct ublk_map_data data = {
>> .ubq = ubq,
>> .rq = req,
>> @@ -566,6 +671,26 @@ static blk_status_t ublk_setup_iod(struct ublk_queue *ubq, struct request *req)
>> case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
>> ublk_op = UBLK_IO_OP_WRITE_ZEROES;
>> break;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED
>> + case REQ_OP_ZONE_OPEN:
>> + ublk_op = UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_OPEN;
>> + break;
>> + case REQ_OP_ZONE_CLOSE:
>> + ublk_op = UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_CLOSE;
>> + break;
>> + case REQ_OP_ZONE_FINISH:
>> + ublk_op = UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_FINISH;
>> + break;
>> + case REQ_OP_ZONE_RESET:
>> + ublk_op = UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_RESET;
>> + break;
>> + case REQ_OP_DRV_IN:
>> + ublk_op = UBLK_IO_OP_DRV_IN;
>> + break;
>> + case REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND:
>> + /* We do not support zone append yet */
>> + fallthrough;
>> +#endif
>
> The above '#ifdef' is needn't, since OP_ZONE should be defined no
> matter if CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED is enabled or not.
I see. But do we want to process the requests if BLK_DEV_ZONED is not
enabled, or do we want to fail the IO?
>
>> default:
>> return BLK_STS_IOERR;
>> }
>> @@ -612,7 +737,8 @@ static void ublk_complete_rq(struct request *req)
>> *
>> * Both the two needn't unmap.
>> */
>> - if (req_op(req) != REQ_OP_READ && req_op(req) != REQ_OP_WRITE) {
>> + if (req_op(req) != REQ_OP_READ && req_op(req) != REQ_OP_WRITE &&
>> + req_op(req) != REQ_OP_DRV_IN) {
>> blk_mq_end_request(req, BLK_STS_OK);
>> return;
>> }
>> @@ -1535,6 +1661,15 @@ static int ublk_ctrl_start_dev(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd)
>> if (ret)
>> goto out_put_disk;
>>
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED) &&
>> + ub->dev_info.flags & UBLK_F_ZONED) {
>> + disk_set_zoned(disk, BLK_ZONED_HM);
>> + blk_queue_required_elevator_features(disk->queue, ELEVATOR_F_ZBD_SEQ_WRITE);
>> + ret = ublk_revalidate_disk_zones(disk);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto out_put_disk;
>> + }
>> +
>> get_device(&ub->cdev_dev);
>> ret = add_disk(disk);
>> if (ret) {
>> @@ -1673,6 +1808,9 @@ static int ublk_ctrl_add_dev(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd)
>> if (!IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UBLK))
>> ub->dev_info.flags |= UBLK_F_URING_CMD_COMP_IN_TASK;
>>
>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED))
>> + ub->dev_info.flags &= ~UBLK_F_ZONED;
>> +
>> /* We are not ready to support zero copy */
>> ub->dev_info.flags &= ~UBLK_F_SUPPORT_ZERO_COPY;
>>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h b/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h
>> index 8f88e3a29998..074b97821575 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h
>> @@ -78,6 +78,10 @@
>> #define UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY (1UL << 3)
>>
>> #define UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE (1UL << 4)
>> +/*
>> + * Enable zoned device support
>> + */
>> +#define UBLK_F_ZONED (1ULL << 5)
>>
>> /* device state */
>> #define UBLK_S_DEV_DEAD 0
>> @@ -129,6 +133,12 @@ struct ublksrv_ctrl_dev_info {
>> #define UBLK_IO_OP_DISCARD 3
>> #define UBLK_IO_OP_WRITE_SAME 4
>> #define UBLK_IO_OP_WRITE_ZEROES 5
>> +#define UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_OPEN 10
>> +#define UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_CLOSE 11
>> +#define UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_FINISH 12
>> +#define UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_APPEND 13
>> +#define UBLK_IO_OP_ZONE_RESET 15
>> +#define UBLK_IO_OP_DRV_IN 34
>>
>> #define UBLK_IO_F_FAILFAST_DEV (1U << 8)
>> #define UBLK_IO_F_FAILFAST_TRANSPORT (1U << 9)
>> @@ -214,6 +224,12 @@ struct ublk_param_discard {
>> __u16 reserved0;
>> };
>>
>> +struct ublk_param_zoned {
>> + __u64 max_open_zones;
>> + __u64 max_active_zones;
>> + __u64 max_append_size;
>> +};
>
> Is the above zoned parameter enough for future extension?
> Does ZNS need extra parameter? Or some zoned new(important) features?
@Damien, @Hans, @Matias, what do you think?
>
> I highly suggest to reserve some fields for extension, given
> it is one ABI interface, which is supposed to be defined well
> enough from the beginning.
How many bytes would you reserve?
Thanks!
Best regards,
Andreas