On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:31:02AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 06:29:54PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> >> When copying up within the same fs, try to use f_op->copy_file_range().
>> >> This becomes very efficient when lower and upper are on the same fs
>> >> with file reflink support.
>> >>
>> >> Tested correct behavior when lower and upper are on:
>> >> 1. same ext4 (copy)
>> >> 2. same xfs + reflink patches + mkfs.xfs (copy)
>> >> 3. same xfs + reflink patches + mkfs.xfs -m reflink=1 (clone)
>> >> 4. different xfs + reflink patches + mkfs.xfs -m reflink=1 (copy)
>> >>
>> >> Verified that all the overlay xfstests pass in the 'same xfs+reflink'
>> >> setup.
>> >>
>> >> For comparison, on my laptop, xfstest overlay/001 (copy up of large
>> >> sparse files) takes less than 1 second in the xfs reflink setup vs.
>> >> 25 seconds on the rest of the setups.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >> fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> >> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c b/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c
>> >> index 43fdc27..400567b 100644
>> >> --- a/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c
>> >> +++ b/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c
>> >> @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_data(struct path *old, struct path *new, loff_t len)
>> >> struct file *new_file;
>> >> loff_t old_pos = 0;
>> >> loff_t new_pos = 0;
>> >> + int try_copy_file = 0;
>> >> int error = 0;
>> >>
>> >> if (len == 0)
>> >> @@ -136,6 +137,13 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_data(struct path *old, struct path *new, loff_t len)
>> >> goto out_fput;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * When copying up within the same fs, try to use fs's copy_file_range
>> >> + */
>> >> + if (file_inode(old_file)->i_sb == file_inode(new_file)->i_sb) {
>> >> + try_copy_file = (new_file->f_op->copy_file_range != NULL);
>> >> + }
>> >
>> > You don't need this. .copy_file_range() should return -EXDEV when
>> > you try to use it to copy files across different mount points or
>> > superblocks.
>> >
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> > i.e. you should probably be calling vfs_copy_file_range() here to do
>> > the copy up, and if that fails (for whatever reason) then fall back
>> > to the existing data copying code.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, I considered that. With this V0 patch, copy_file_range() is
>> called inside the copy data 'killable loop'
>> but, unlike the slower splice, it tries to copy the entire remaining
>> len on every cycle and will most likely get all or nothing without
>> causing any major stalls.
>> So my options for V1 are:
>> 1. use the existing loop only fallback to splice on any
>> copy_file_range() failure.
>> 2. add another (non killable?) loop before the splice killable loop to
>> try and copy up as much data with copy_file_range()
>> 3. implement ovl_copy_up_file_range() and do the fallback near the
>> call site of ovl_copy_up_data()
>
> vfs_copy_file_range() already has a fallback to call
> do_splice_direct() itself if ->copy_file_range() is not supported.
> i.e. it will behave identically to the existing code if
> copy_file_range is not supported by the underlying fs.
>
I though so initially, but existing code is not identical to the
vfs_copy_file_range() implementation because ovl_copy_up_data()
splices in small chunks allowing the user to kill the copying process.
This makes sense because the poor process only called open(),
so the app writer may not have been expecting a stall of copying
a large file...
> If copy_file_range() fails, then it's for a reason that will cause
> do_splice_direct() to fail as well.
>
> vfs_copy_file_range() should really be a direct replacement for any
> code that calls do_splice_direct(). If it's not, we should make it
> so (e.g call do_splice direct for cross-fs copies automatically
> rather than returning EXDEV)
But man page states that EXDEV will be returned if
"The files referred to by file_in and file_out are not on the
same mounted filesystem"
I guess that when API is updated to allow for non zero flags,
then vfs_copy_file_range() should do_splice() instead or returning
EXDEV, only if (flags == COPY_FR_COPY).
> and then replace all the calls in the
> kernel to do_splice_direct() with vfs_copy_file_range()....
So in this case, I could not have replaced do_splice_direct() with
vfs_copy_file_range(), because I would either break the killable loop
behavior, or call copy_file_range() in small chunks which is not
desirable - is it?
Cheers,
Amir.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
