Hi all, Christoph and I have been working on adding reflink and CoW support to XFS recently. Since the purpose of (mode 0) fallocate is to make sure that future file writes cannot ENOSPC, I extended the XFS fallocate handler to unshare any shared blocks via the copy on write mechanism I built for it. However, Christoph shared the following concerns with me about that interpretation: > I know that I suggested unsharing blocks on fallocate, but it turns out > this is causing problems. Applications expect falloc to be a fast > metadata operation, and copying a potentially large number of blocks > is against that expextation. This is especially bad for the NFS > server, which should not be blocked for a long time in a synchronous > operation. > > I think we'll have to remove the unshare and just fail the fallocate > for a reflinked region for now. I still think it makes sense to expose > an unshare operation, and we probably should make that another > fallocate mode. With that in mind, how do you all think we ought to resolve this? Should we add a new fallocate mode flag that means "unshare the shared blocks"? Obviously, this unshare flag cannot be used in conjunction with hole punching, zero range, insert range, or collapse range. This breaks the expectation that writing to a file after fallocate won't ENOSPC. Or is it ok that fallocate could block, potentially for a long time as we stream cows through the page cache (or however unshare works internally)? Those same programs might not be expecting fallocate to take a long time. Can we do better than either solution? It occurs to me that XFS does unshare by reading the file data into the pagecache, marking the pages dirty, and flushing the dirty pages; performance could be improved by skipping the flush at the end. We won't ENOSPC, because the XFS delalloc system is careful enough to check that there are enough free blocks to handle both the allocation and the metadata updates. The only gap in this scheme that I can see is if we fallocate, crash, and upon restart the program then tries to write without retrying the fallocate. Can we trade some performance for the added requirement that we must fallocate -> write -> fsync, and retry the trio if we crash before the fsync returns? I think that's already an implicit requirement, so we might be ok here. Opinions? I rather like the last option, though I've only just thought of it and have not had time to examine it thoroughly, and it's specific to XFS. :) --D -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
