[LSF/MM/BFP ATTEND] [LSF/MM/BFP TOPIC] Storage: Copy Offload

[Nitesh Shetty]

Chaitanya,

I would like to join the conversation.

Thanks,
Nitesh

On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 7:29 PM Javier González <javier at javigon.com> wrote:
>
> On 27.01.2022 07:14, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >* Background :-
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Copy offload is a feature that allows file-systems or storage devices
> >to be instructed to copy files/logical blocks without requiring
> >involvement of the local CPU.
> >
> >With reference to the RISC-V summit keynote [1] single threaded
> >performance is limiting due to Denard scaling and multi-threaded
> >performance is slowing down due Moore's law limitations. With the rise
> >of SNIA Computation Technical Storage Working Group (TWG) [2],
> >offloading computations to the device or over the fabrics is becoming
> >popular as there are several solutions available [2]. One of the common
> >operation which is popular in the kernel and is not merged yet is Copy
> >offload over the fabrics or on to the device.
> >
> >* Problem :-
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >The original work which is done by Martin is present here [3]. The
> >latest work which is posted by Mikulas [4] is not merged yet. These two
> >approaches are totally different from each other. Several storage
> >vendors discourage mixing copy offload requests with regular READ/WRITE
> >I/O. Also, the fact that the operation fails if a copy request ever
> >needs to be split as it traverses the stack it has the unfortunate
> >side-effect of preventing copy offload from working in pretty much
> >every common deployment configuration out there.
> >
> >* Current state of the work :-
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >With [3] being hard to handle arbitrary DM/MD stacking without
> >splitting the command in two, one for copying IN and one for copying
> >OUT. Which is then demonstrated by the [4] why [3] it is not a suitable
> >candidate. Also, with [4] there is an unresolved problem with the
> >two-command approach about how to handle changes to the DM layout
> >between an IN and OUT operations.
> >
> >We have conducted a call with interested people late last year since
> >lack of LSFMMM and we would like to share the details with broader
> >community members.
>
> Chaitanya,
>
> I would also like to join the F2F conversation as a follow up of the
> virtual one last year. We will have a first version of the patches
> posted in the next few weeks. This will hopefully serve as a good first
> step.
>
> Adding Kanchan to thread too.
>
> Javier