(Resending because Google Inbox didn't switch to plain text) On 04/17/2017 11:30 AM, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:36 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 05:22:13PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Mora, Jorge <Jorge.Mora@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 4/13/17, 11:45 AM, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Are you timing just the copy_file_range() call, or do you include a >>>>> following sync? >>>> >>>> I am timing right before calling copy_file_range() up to doing an fsync() and close() of the destination file. >>>> For the traditional copy is the same, I am timing right before the first read on the source file up to the >>>> fsync() and close() of the destination file. >>> >>> Why should do we need a sync after copy_file_range(). kernel >>> copy_file_range() will send the commits for any unstable copies it >>> received. >> >> Why does it do that? As far as I can tell it's not required by >> documentation for copy_file_range() or COPY. COPY has a write verifier >> and a stable_how argument in the reply. Skipping the commits would >> allow better performance in case a copy requires multiple COPY calls. >> >> But, in any case, if copy_file_range() already committed then it >> probably doesn't make a significant difference to the timing whether you >> include a following sync and/or close. > > Hm. It does make sense. Anna wrote the original code which included > the COMMIT after copy which I haven't thought about. > > Anna, any comments? I think the commit just seemed like a good idea at the time. I'm okay with changing it if it doesn't make sense. Anna > > _______________________________________________ > nfsv4 mailing list > nfsv4@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
