On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:02:40PM +0800, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
>
>
> On 5/29/19 10:47 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:01:58AM +0800, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/28/19 5:17 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Mon 27-05-19 16:25:41, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> > > > > On 5/23/19 7:51 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm working on reflink & dax in XFS, here are some thoughts on this:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As mentioned above: the second iomap's offset and length must match the
> > > > > > > first. I thought so at the beginning, but later found that the only
> > > > > > > difference between these two iomaps is @addr. So, what about adding a
> > > > > > > @saddr, which means the source address of COW extent, into the struct iomap.
> > > > > > > The ->iomap_begin() fills @saddr if the extent is COW, and 0 if not. Then
> > > > > > > handle this @saddr in each ->actor(). No more modifications in other
> > > > > > > functions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I started of with the exact idea before being recommended this by Dave.
> > > > > > I used two fields instead of one namely cow_pos and cow_addr which defined
> > > > > > the source details. I had put it as a iomap flag as opposed to a type
> > > > > > which of course did not appeal well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We may want to use iomaps for cases where two inodes are involved.
> > > > > > An example of the other scenario where offset may be different is file
> > > > > > comparison for dedup: vfs_dedup_file_range_compare(). However, it would
> > > > > > need two inodes in iomap as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it is reasonable. Thanks for your explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > One more thing RFC:
> > > > > I'd like to add an end-io callback argument in ->dax_iomap_actor() to update
> > > > > the metadata after one whole COW operation is completed. The end-io can
> > > > > also be called in ->iomap_end(). But one COW operation may call
> > > > > ->iomap_apply() many times, and so does the end-io. Thus, I think it would
> > > > > be nice to move it to the bottom of ->dax_iomap_actor(), called just once in
> > > > > each COW operation.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry but I don't follow what you suggest. One COW operation is a call
> > > > to dax_iomap_rw(), isn't it? That may call iomap_apply() several times,
> > > > each invocation calls ->iomap_begin(), ->actor() (dax_iomap_actor()),
> > > > ->iomap_end() once. So I don't see a difference between doing something in
> > > > ->actor() and ->iomap_end() (besides the passed arguments but that does not
> > > > seem to be your concern). So what do you exactly want to do?
> > >
> > > Hi Jan,
> > >
> > > Thanks for pointing out, and I'm sorry for my mistake. It's
> > > ->dax_iomap_rw(), not ->dax_iomap_actor().
> > >
> > > I want to call the callback function at the end of ->dax_iomap_rw().
> > >
> > > Like this:
> > > dax_iomap_rw(..., callback) {
> > >
> > > ...
> > > while (...) {
> > > iomap_apply(...);
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (callback != null) {
> > > callback();
> > > }
> > > return ...;
> > > }
> >
> > Why does this need to be in dax_iomap_rw()?
> >
> > We already do post-dax_iomap_rw() "io-end callbacks" directly in
> > xfs_file_dax_write() to update the file size....
>
> Yes, but we also need to call ->xfs_reflink_end_cow() after a COW operation.
> And an is-cow flag(from iomap) is also needed to determine if we call it. I
> think it would be better to put this into ->dax_iomap_rw() as a callback
> function.
Sort of like how iomap_dio_rw takes a write endio function?
--D
> So sorry for my poor expression.
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dave.
> >
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Shiyang Ruan.
>
>
