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:	Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:06:20 -0700
From:	Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
To:	Anna Schumaker <schumaker.anna@...il.com>
Cc:	Szeredi Miklos <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	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 Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 03:02:29PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hrmph.  I had composed a reply to you during Plumbers but.. something
> > happened to it :).  Here's another try now that I'm back.
> >
> >> > Some things to talk about:
> >> > - I really don't care about the naming here.  If you do, holler.
> >> > - We might want different flags for file-to-file splicing and acceleration
> >>
> >> Yes, I think "copy" and "reflink" needs to be differentiated.
> >
> > I initially agreed but I'm not so sure now.  The problem is that we
> > can't know whether the acceleration is copying or not.  XCOPY on some
> > array may well do some shared referencing tricks.  The nfs COPY op can
> > have a server use btrfs reflink, or ext* and XCOPY, or .. who knows.  At
> > some point we have to admit that we have no way to determine the
> > relative durability of writes.  Storage can do a lot to make writes more
> > or less fragile that we have no visibility of.  SSD FTLs can log a bunch
> > of unrelated sectors on to one flash failure domain.
> >
> > And if such a flag couldn't *actually* guarantee anything for a bunch of
> > storage topologies, well, let's not bother with it.
> >
> > The only flag I'm in favour of now is one that has splice return rather
> > than falling back to manual page cache reads and writes.  It's more like
> > O_NONBLOCK than any kind of data durability hint.
> 
> For reference, I'm planning to have the NFS server do the fallback
> when it copies since any local copy will be faster than a read and
> write over the network.

Agreed, this is definitely the reasonable thing to do.

- 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/