All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Lawrence Greenfield <leg@google.com>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, joel.becker@oracle.com, cmm@us.ibm.com,
	cluster-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:44:31 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110112124431.GP28803@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimwmJ_ZoE9oAuA1WGhCgK585jDznqnc6k0=9Ntb@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:13:42PM -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > The historical reason for such behaviour existing in XFS was that in
> > 1997 the CPU and IO latency cost of unwritten extent conversion was
> > significant,

.....

> >> (Take for example a trusted cluster filesystem backend that checks the
> >> object checksum before returning any data to the user; and if the
> >> check fails the cluster file system will try to use some other replica
> >> stored on some other server.)
> >
> > IOWs, all they want to do is avoid the unwritten extent conversion
> > overhead. Time has shown that a bad security/performance tradeoff
> > decision was made 13 years ago in XFS, so I see little reason to
> > repeat it for ext4 today....
> 
> I'd make use of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA. It's not the CPU overhead
> of extent conversion. It's that extent conversion causes more metadata
> operations than what you'd have otherwise,

Yes, that's the "IO latency" part of the cost I mentioned above.

> which means systems that
> want to use O_DIRECT and make sure the data doesn't go away either
> have to write O_DIRECT|O_DSYNC or need to call fdatasync().

Seriously, we tell application writers _all the time_ that they
*must* use fsync/fdatasync to guarantee their data is on stable
storage and that they cannot rely on side-effects of filesystem or
storage specific behaviours (like ext3 ordered mode) to do that job
for them.

You're suggesting that by introducing FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA,
applications can rely on filesystem/storage specific behaviour to
guarantee data is on stable storage without the use of
fdatasync/fsync. Wht you describe is definitely storage specific,
because volatile write caches still needs the fdatasync to issue a
cache flush.

Do you see the same conflict here that I do?

> cluster file system implementor

Which one?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Lawrence Greenfield <leg@google.com>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
	cluster-devel@redhat.com, cmm@us.ibm.com,
	Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>,
	joel.becker@oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:44:31 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110112124431.GP28803@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimwmJ_ZoE9oAuA1WGhCgK585jDznqnc6k0=9Ntb@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:13:42PM -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > The historical reason for such behaviour existing in XFS was that in
> > 1997 the CPU and IO latency cost of unwritten extent conversion was
> > significant,

.....

> >> (Take for example a trusted cluster filesystem backend that checks the
> >> object checksum before returning any data to the user; and if the
> >> check fails the cluster file system will try to use some other replica
> >> stored on some other server.)
> >
> > IOWs, all they want to do is avoid the unwritten extent conversion
> > overhead. Time has shown that a bad security/performance tradeoff
> > decision was made 13 years ago in XFS, so I see little reason to
> > repeat it for ext4 today....
> 
> I'd make use of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA. It's not the CPU overhead
> of extent conversion. It's that extent conversion causes more metadata
> operations than what you'd have otherwise,

Yes, that's the "IO latency" part of the cost I mentioned above.

> which means systems that
> want to use O_DIRECT and make sure the data doesn't go away either
> have to write O_DIRECT|O_DSYNC or need to call fdatasync().

Seriously, we tell application writers _all the time_ that they
*must* use fsync/fdatasync to guarantee their data is on stable
storage and that they cannot rely on side-effects of filesystem or
storage specific behaviours (like ext3 ordered mode) to do that job
for them.

You're suggesting that by introducing FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA,
applications can rely on filesystem/storage specific behaviour to
guarantee data is on stable storage without the use of
fdatasync/fsync. Wht you describe is definitely storage specific,
because volatile write caches still needs the fdatasync to issue a
cache flush.

Do you see the same conflict here that I do?

> cluster file system implementor

Which one?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-01-12 12:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-08 20:32 [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 2/6] XFS: handle hole punching via fallocate properly Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  1:22   ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  1:22     ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  2:05     ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  2:05       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  4:21       ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  4:21         ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 3/6] Ocfs2: " Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 4/6] Ext4: fail if we try to use hole punch Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 5/6] Btrfs: " Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 10:05   ` Will Newton
2010-11-09 10:05     ` Will Newton
2010-11-09 10:05     ` Will Newton
2010-11-09 10:05     ` Will Newton
2010-11-09 12:53     ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 12:53       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 12:53       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 12:53       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 6/6] Gfs2: " Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  1:12 ` [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  1:12   ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  2:10   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  2:10     ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  3:30   ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09  3:30     ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09  4:42     ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  4:42       ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  4:42       ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 21:41       ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09 21:41         ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09 21:53         ` [Cluster-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-09 21:53           ` Jan Kara
2010-11-09 21:53           ` Jan Kara
2010-11-09 23:40         ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 23:40           ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 23:40           ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 23:40           ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-11 21:13           ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:13             ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:13             ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:13             ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:30             ` Ted Ts'o
2011-01-11 21:30               ` Ted Ts'o
2011-01-12 11:48               ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 11:48                 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 11:48                 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 11:48               ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 12:44             ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2011-01-12 12:44               ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 18:13               ` Ric Wheeler
2011-01-28 18:13                 ` Ric Wheeler
2010-11-09 20:51   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 20:51     ` Josef Bacik
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-11-15 17:05 Hole Punching V2 Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 11:16   ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:16     ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:43     ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:43       ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 12:52       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 12:52         ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 13:14         ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 13:14           ` Jan Kara
2010-11-17  0:22           ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  0:22             ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  2:11             ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-17  2:11               ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-17  2:28               ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17  2:28                 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17  2:34                 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17  2:34                   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17  9:30                   ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  9:30                     ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  9:19               ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  9:19                 ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-16 12:53     ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 12:53       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-18  1:46 Hole Punching V3 Josef Bacik
2010-11-18  1:46 ` [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate Josef Bacik
2010-11-18  1:46   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-18  1:46   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-18 23:43   ` Jan Kara
2010-11-18 23:43     ` Jan Kara

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110112124431.GP28803@dastard \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=cluster-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=joel.becker@oracle.com \
    --cc=josef@redhat.com \
    --cc=leg@google.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.