On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:27:22AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:42:00AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > >> I agree, but it needs quite a bit more thought and restructuring of > >> the truncate path. I also wonder how we reclaim those stranded > >> filesystem blocks, but a first approximation is wait for the > >> administrator to delete them or auto-delete them at the next mount. > >> XFS seems well prepared to reflink-swap these DMA blocks around, but > >> I'm not sure about EXT4. > > > > reflink still is an optional and experimental feature in XFS. That > > being said we should not need to swap block pointers around on disk. > > We just need to prevent the block allocator from reusing the blocks > > for new allocations, and we have code for that, both for transactions > > that haven't been committed to disk yet, and for deleted blocks > > undergoing discard operations. > > > > But as mentioned in my second mail from this morning I'm not even > > sure we need that. For short-term elevated page counts like normal > > get_user_pages users I think we can just wait for the page count > > to reach zero, while for abuses of get_user_pages for long term > > pinning memory (not sure if anyone but rdma is doing that) we'll need > > something like FL_LAYOUT leases to release the mapping. > > I'll take a look at hooking this up through a page-idle callback. Can > I get some breadcrumbs to grep for from XFS folks on how to set/clear > the busy state of extents? See fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
