drbd: introduce P_ZEROES (REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES on the "wire")

And also re-enable partial-zero-out + discard aligned.

With the introduction of REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES,
we started to use that for both WRITE_ZEROES and DISCARDS,
hoping that WRITE_ZEROES would "do what we want",
UNMAP if possible, zero-out the rest.

The example scenario is some LVM "thin" backend.

While an un-allocated block on dm-thin reads as zeroes, on a dm-thin
with "skip_block_zeroing=true", after a partial block write allocated
that block, that same block may well map "undefined old garbage" from
the backends on LBAs that have not yet been written to.

If we cannot distinguish between zero-out and discard on the receiving
side, to avoid "undefined old garbage" to pop up randomly at later times
on supposedly zero-initialized blocks, we'd need to map all discards to
zero-out on the receiving side.  But that would potentially do a full
alloc on thinly provisioned backends, even when the expectation was to
unmap/trim/discard/de-allocate.

We need to distinguish on the protocol level, whether we need to guarantee
zeroes (and thus use zero-out, potentially doing the mentioned full-alloc),
or if we want to put the emphasis on discard, and only do a "best effort
zeroing" (by "discarding" blocks aligned to discard-granularity, and zeroing
only potential unaligned head and tail clippings to at least *try* to
avoid "false positives" in an online-verify later), hoping that someone
set skip_block_zeroing=false.

For some discussion regarding this on dm-devel, see also
https://www.mail-archive.com/dm-devel%40redhat.com/msg07965.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2018-January/msg00271.html

For backward compatibility, P_TRIM means zero-out, unless the
DRBD_FF_WZEROES feature flag is agreed upon during handshake.

To have upper layers even try to submit WRITE ZEROES requests,
we need to announce "efficient zeroout" independently.

We need to fixup max_write_zeroes_sectors after blk_queue_stack_limits():
if we can handle "zeroes" efficiently on the protocol,
we want to do that, even if our backend does not announce
max_write_zeroes_sectors itself.

Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_req.h b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_req.h
index 94c654020f0f..c2f569d2661b 100644
--- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_req.h
+++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_req.h
@@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ enum drbd_req_state_bits {
 	__RQ_WRITE,
 	__RQ_WSAME,
 	__RQ_UNMAP,
+	__RQ_ZEROES,
 
 	/* Should call drbd_al_complete_io() for this request... */
 	__RQ_IN_ACT_LOG,
@@ -253,6 +254,7 @@ enum drbd_req_state_bits {
 #define RQ_WRITE           (1UL << __RQ_WRITE)
 #define RQ_WSAME           (1UL << __RQ_WSAME)
 #define RQ_UNMAP           (1UL << __RQ_UNMAP)
+#define RQ_ZEROES          (1UL << __RQ_ZEROES)
 #define RQ_IN_ACT_LOG      (1UL << __RQ_IN_ACT_LOG)
 #define RQ_UNPLUG          (1UL << __RQ_UNPLUG)
 #define RQ_POSTPONED	   (1UL << __RQ_POSTPONED)