Message-ID: <5244A68F.906@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:26:39 -0400
From:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To:	Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
CC:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	"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 09/26/2013 02:55 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
> 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

This last flag should not prevent a remote target device (NFS or SCSI array) 
copy from working though since they often do reflink like operations inside of 
the remote target device....

ric


--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists