[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210112181600.GA1228497@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:16:00 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fallocate(FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE_BUT_REALLY) to avoid unwritten
extents?
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 09:57:48PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > I don't have a strong opinion on it. A complex userland application can
> > do a bit better job managing queue depth etc, but otherwise I suspect
> > doing the IO from kernel will win by a small bit. And the queue-depth
> > issue presumably would be relevant for write-zeroes as well, making me
> > lean towards just using the fallback.
> >
>
> The new flag will avoid requiring DMA to transfer the entire file size, and
> perhaps can be implemented in the device by just adjusting metadata. So
> there is potential for the new flag to be much more efficient.
We already support a WRITE_ZEROES operation, which many (but not all)
NVMe devices and some SCSI devices support. The blkdev_issue_zeroout
helper can use those, or falls back to writing actual zeroes.
XFS already has a XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64 that is defined to actually
allocate written extents. It does not currently use
blkdev_issue_zeroout, but could be changed pretty trivially to do so.
> But note it will need to be plumbed down to md and dm to be generally
> useful.
DM and MD already support mddev_check_write_zeroes, at least for the
usual targets.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists