Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] block: blk_interposer - Block Layer Interposer | From | Hannes Reinecke <> | Date | Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:41:07 +0100 |
| |
On 12/15/20 7:51 AM, Bob Liu wrote: > Hi Folks, > > On 12/12/20 12:56 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> On 12/11/20 5:33 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 12/11/20 9:30 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: >>>> While I still think there needs to be a proper _upstream_ consumer of >>>> blk_interposer as a condition of it going in.. I'll let others make the >>>> call. >>> >>> That's an unequivocal rule. >>> >>>> As such, I'll defer to Jens, Christoph and others on whether your >>>> minimalist blk_interposer hook is acceptable in the near-term. >>> >>> I don't think so, we don't do short term bandaids just to plan on >>> ripping that out when the real functionality is there. IMHO, the dm >>> approach is the way to go - it provides exactly the functionality that >>> is needed in an appropriate way, instead of hacking some "interposer" >>> into the core block layer. >>> >> Which is my plan, too. >> >> I'll be working with the Veeam folks to present a joint patchset (including the DM bits) for the next round. >> > > Besides the dm approach, do you think Veeam's original requirement is a good > use case of "block/bpf: add eBPF based block layer IO filtering"? > https://lwn.net/ml/bpf/20200812163305.545447-1-leah.rumancik@gmail.com/ > That would actually a really cool use-case. You could also consider a XDP-like functionality for eBPF, to move individual requests from one queue to the other; DM on steroids :-)
Should I try to include that patchset?
Cheers,
Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
| |