On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:22:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Objections, comments?
>
> I certainly object to the "map, then unmap" approach. No VM games.
Um...
int pipe_to_file(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, struct pipe_buffer *buf,
struct splice_desc *sd)
...
if (buf->page != page) {
char *src = buf->ops->map(pipe, buf, 1);
char *dst = kmap_atomic(page);
memcpy(dst + offset, src + buf->offset, this_len);
flush_dcache_page(page);
kunmap_atomic(dst);
buf->ops->unmap(pipe, buf, src);
}
...
->map() and ->unmap() (BTW, why are those methods, anyway? They are
identical for all instances) are
void *generic_pipe_buf_map(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
struct pipe_buffer *buf, int atomic)
{
if (atomic) {
buf->flags |= PIPE_BUF_FLAG_ATOMIC;
return kmap_atomic(buf->page);
}
return kmap(buf->page);
}
and
void generic_pipe_buf_unmap(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
struct pipe_buffer *buf, void *map_data)
{
if (buf->flags & PIPE_BUF_FLAG_ATOMIC) {
buf->flags &= ~PIPE_BUF_FLAG_ATOMIC;
kunmap_atomic(map_data);
} else
kunmap(buf->page);
}
resp.
If we are going to copy that data (and all users of generic_file_splice_write()
do that memcpy() to page cache), we have to kmap the source ;-/
> But if it can be done more naturally as a writev, then that may well
> be ok. As long as we're talking about just the
> default_file_splice_write() case, and people who want to do special
> things with page movement can continue to do so..
The thing is, after such change default_file_splice_write() is no worse than
generic_file_splice_write(). The only instances that really want something
else are the ones that try to steal pages (e.g. virtio_console, fuse miscdev)
or sockets, with their "do DMA from the sodding page, don't copy it at
anywhere" ->sendpage() method. IOW, ones those special things you are
talking about. Normal filesystems do not - not on pipe-to-file splice.
file-to-pipe - sure, that one plays with pagecache and tries hard to
do zero-copy, but that's ->splice_read(), not ->splice_write()...
_If_ somebody figures out how to deal with zero-copy on pipe-to-file - fine,
we'll be able to revisit that. But there hadn't been one since 2007 and
there was zero activity in that area, so...
What I'm doing right now is taking do_readv_writev() apart and making the
stuff after rw_copy_check_uvector() non-static (visible in fs/internal.h).
As long as we do not go through rw_copy_check_uvector() (we'd just built
that iovec ourselves and it's already in kernel space), we should be fine -
single copy done straight to pagecache, with whatever locks fs wants to
take, etc.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
