On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 11:05:50AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 15:53 +0100, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 3:30 PM Luis Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 08:06:17AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 10:03 +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: > > > > > Instead of using the 'copy-from' operation, switch copy_file_range to the > > > > > new 'copy-from2' operation, which allows to send the truncate_seq and > > > > > truncate_size parameters. > > > > > > > > > > If an OSD does not support the 'copy-from2' operation it will return > > > > > -EOPNOTSUPP. In that case, the kernel client will stop trying to do > > > > > remote object copies for this fs client and will always use the generic > > > > > VFS copy_file_range. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > Hi Jeff, > > > > > > > > > > This is a follow-up to the discussion in [1]. Since PR [2] has been > > > > > merged, it's now time to change the kernel client to use the new > > > > > 'copy-from2'. And that's what this patch does. > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191118120935.7013-1-lhenriques@xxxxxxxx/ > > > > > [2] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/31728 > > > > > > > > > > fs/ceph/file.c | 13 ++++++++++++- > > > > > fs/ceph/super.c | 1 + > > > > > fs/ceph/super.h | 3 +++ > > > > > include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h | 1 + > > > > > include/linux/ceph/rados.h | 2 ++ > > > > > net/ceph/osd_client.c | 18 ++++++++++++------ > > > > > 6 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/file.c b/fs/ceph/file.c > > > > > index 11929d2bb594..1e6cdf2dfe90 100644 > > > > > --- a/fs/ceph/file.c > > > > > +++ b/fs/ceph/file.c > > > > > @@ -1974,6 +1974,10 @@ static ssize_t __ceph_copy_file_range(struct file *src_file, loff_t src_off, > > > > > if (ceph_test_mount_opt(src_fsc, NOCOPYFROM)) > > > > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > > > > > > > + /* Do the OSDs support the 'copy-from2' operation? */ > > > > > + if (!src_fsc->have_copy_from2) > > > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > > + > > > > > /* > > > > > * Striped file layouts require that we copy partial objects, but the > > > > > * OSD copy-from operation only supports full-object copies. Limit > > > > > @@ -2101,8 +2105,15 @@ static ssize_t __ceph_copy_file_range(struct file *src_file, loff_t src_off, > > > > > CEPH_OSD_OP_FLAG_FADVISE_NOCACHE, > > > > > &dst_oid, &dst_oloc, > > > > > CEPH_OSD_OP_FLAG_FADVISE_SEQUENTIAL | > > > > > - CEPH_OSD_OP_FLAG_FADVISE_DONTNEED, 0); > > > > > + CEPH_OSD_OP_FLAG_FADVISE_DONTNEED, > > > > > + dst_ci->i_truncate_seq, dst_ci->i_truncate_size, > > > > > + CEPH_OSD_COPY_FROM_FLAG_TRUNCATE_SEQ); > > > > > if (err) { > > > > > + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) { > > > > > + src_fsc->have_copy_from2 = false; > > > > > + pr_notice("OSDs don't support 'copy-from2'; " > > > > > + "disabling copy_file_range\n"); > > > > > + } > > > > > dout("ceph_osdc_copy_from returned %d\n", err); > > > > > if (!ret) > > > > > ret = err; > > > > > > > > The patch itself looks fine to me. I'll not merge yet, since you sent it > > > > as an RFC, but I don't have any objection to it at first glance. > > > > > > I was going to drop the RFC, but then at the last minute decided to leave. > > > > > > > The > > > > only other comment I'd make is that you should probably split this into > > > > two patches -- one for the libceph changes and one for cephfs. > > > > > > Hmm... TBH I didn't thought about that, but since the libceph patch would > > > be changing its API (ceph_osdc_copy_from would have 2 extra parameters), I > > > don't think that's a good idea. Bisection would be broken between these 2 > > > patches. > > > > In that case, I'll just go ahead and do some testing with this patch and > will plan to merge it as-is, assuming that goes ok. Awesome, thanks! Cheers, -- Luís
