[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Nbd] [PATCH] nbd: fix trim/discard commands with a len

From: Quentin Casasnovas
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Nbd] [PATCH] nbd: fix trim/discard commands with a length bigger than NBD_MAX_BUFFER_SIZE
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 18:04:38 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 04:49:57PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> On 10 May 2016, at 16:45, Quentin Casasnovas <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I'm by no mean an expert in this, but why would the kernel break up those
> > TRIM commands?  After all, breaking things up makes sense when the length
> > of the request is big, not that much when it only contains the request
> > header, which is the case for TRIM commands.
> 1. You are assuming that the only reason for limiting the size of operations 
> is
>    limiting the data transferred within one request. That is not necessarily
>    the case. There are good reasons (if only orthogonality) to have limits
>    in place even where no data is transferred.
> 2. As and when the blocksize extension is implemented in the kernel (it isn't
>    now), the protocol requires it.
> 3. The maximum length of an NBD trim operation is 2^32. The maximum length
>    of a trim operation is larger. Therefore the kernel needs to do at least
>    some breaking up.

Alright, I assumed by 'length of an NBD request', the specification was
talking about the length of.. well, the request as opposed to whatever is
in the length field of the request header.

Is there a use case where you'd want to split up a single big TRIM request
in smaller ones (as in some hardware would not support it or something)?
Even then, it looks like this splitting up would be hardware dependant and
better implemented in block device drivers.

I'm just finding odd that something that fits inside the length field can't
be used.  I do agree with your point number 3, obviously if the lenght
field type doesn't allow something bigger than a u32, then the kernel has
to do some breaking up in that case.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]