On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> > You can test whether this is supported at mount time, so you do a >>> > simply flag test at copyup to determine if a clone should be >>> > attempted or not. >>> > >>> >>> I am not sure that would not be over optimization. >>> I am already checking for the obvious reason for clone to fail in copyup - >>> different i_sb. >> >> Again, please don't do that. Call vfs_clone_file_range() as it >> checks a whole lot more stuff that can cause a clone to fail. And it >> makes sure that the write references to the mnt are taken so that >> things like freeze and remount-ro behave correctly while a clone is >> in progress. >> > > OK > Dave, I just sent out v2 patch series that follows your suggestions (I hope). Please note that inside vfs_copy_file_range() I *did* add a pre-condition of different i_sb *before* calling into ->copy_file_range(). The reason is that not all fs check for different i_sb inside the implementation (i.e. nfs) and since I removed same i_sb constrain from vfs_copy_file_range() I wanted to make sure that different i_sb case always ends up with do_splice_direct() and never propagates into the fs implementation where consequences are unknown. Please reply on new patch set if you disagree. Thanks, Amir. >>> After all, if I just call clone_file_range() once and it fails, then we are back >>> to copying and that is going to make the cost of calling clone insignificant. >> >> Apart from the fact that the ->clone_file_range() calls assume that >> all the validity checks have already been done by the caller, which >> you are not doing. >> >>> > If cloning fails or is not supported, then try vfs_copy_file_range() >>> > to do an optimised iterative partial range file copy. Finally, try >>> > a slow, iterative partial range file copies using >>> > do_splice_direct(). This part can be wholly handled by >>> > vfs_copy_file_range() - this 'not supported' fallback doesn't need >>> > to be implemented every time someone wants to copy data between two >>> > files... >>> >>> You do realize that vfs_copy_file_range() itself does the 'not >>> supported' fallback >>> and if I do call it iteratively, then there will be a lot more 'not >>> supported' attempts >>> then there are in my current patch. >> >> No shit, Sherlock. But you're concentrating on the wrong thing - >> the overhead of checking if .clone_file_range/.copy_file_range is >> implemented and can be executed is effectively zero compared to >> copying any amount of data. >> >> IOWs, Amir, you're trying to *optimise the wrong thing*. It's the >> data copy that is costly and needs to be optimised, not the >> iteration or the checks done to determine what type of clone/copy >> can be executed. Shortcuts around generic helpers like you are >> proposing are more costly in the long run because code like this is >> much more likely to contain/mask bugs that only appear months or >> years later when something else is changed. Case in point: the mnt >> write references that need to be taken before calling >> clone/copy_file_range().... >> >> Please, just use vfs_clone_file_range() and vfs_copy_file_range() >> and only fall back to a slower method if the error returned is >> -EOPNOTSUPP. For any other error, the copy should fail, not be >> ignored. >> > > Obviously, you meant to check for -EOPNOTSUPP or -EXDEV > >>> But regardless, as I wrote to Christoph, changing the >>> vfs_copy_file_range() helper >>> and changing users of do_splice to use it like you suggested sounds >>> like it may be the right thing to do, but without consensus, I am a bit hesitant >>> to make those changes. I am definitely willing to draft the patch and test it >>> if I get more ACKs on the idea. >> >> Send a patch - that's the only way you'll get anyone to comment >> on it. >> > > Will do. > > Thanks, > 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
