linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] extending splice for copy offloading

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:55:08 -0700
From:	Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Anna Schumaker <schumaker.anna@...il.com>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@...app.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@....net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
	Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
	Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] extending splice for copy offloading

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:58:05AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> A client-side copy will be slower, but I guess it does have the
> >> advantage that the application can track progress to some degree, and
> >> abort it fairly quickly without leaving the file in a totally undefined
> >> state--and both might be useful if the copy's not a simple constant-time
> >> operation.
> >
> > I suppose, but can't the app achieve a nice middle ground by copying the
> > file in smaller syscalls?  Avoid bulk data motion back to the client,
> > but still get notification every, I dunno, few hundred meg?
> 
> Yes.  And if "cp"  could just be switched from a read+write syscall
> pair to a single splice syscall using the same buffer size.  And then
> the user would only notice that things got faster in case of server
> side copy.  No problems with long blocking times (at least not much
> worse than it was).

Hmm, yes, that would be a nice outcome.

> However "cp" doesn't do reflinking by default, it has a switch for
> that.  If we just want "cp" and the like to use splice without fearing
> side effects then by default we should try to be as close to
> read+write behavior as possible.  No?

I guess?  I don't find requiring --reflink hugely compelling.  But there
it is.

> That's what I'm really
> worrying about when you want to wire up splice to reflink by default.
> I do think there should be a flag for that.  And if on the block level
> some magic happens, so be it.  It's not the fs deverloper's worry any
> more ;)

Sure.  So we'd have:

- no flag default that forbids knowingly copying with shared references
  so that it will be used by default by people who feel strongly about
  their assumptions about independent write durability.

- a flag that allows shared references for people who would otherwise
  use the file system shared reference ioctls (ocfs2 reflink, btrfs
  clone) but would like it to also do server-side read/write copies
  over nfs without additional intervention.

- a flag that requires shared references for callers who don't want
  giant copies to take forever if they aren't instant.  (The qemu guys
  asked for this at Plumbers.)

I think I can live with that.

- z
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/