On 2015-09-15 12:38, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:58:04AM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: >> On 09/14/2015 11:32 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 04:30:21PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: >>>> The NFS server will need some kind offallback for filesystems that don't >>>> have any kind of copy acceleration, and it should be generally useful to >>>> have an in-kernel copy to avoid lots of switches between kernel and user >>>> space. >>>> >>>> I make this configurable by adding two new flags. Users who only want a >>>> reflink can pass COPY_FR_REFLINK, and users who want a full data copy can >>>> pass COPY_FR_COPY. The default (flags=0) means to first attempt a >>>> reflink, but use the pagecache if that fails. >>>> >>>> I moved the rw_verify_area() calls into the fallback code since some >>>> filesystems can handle reflinking a large range. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker >>>> --- >>>> v2: >>>> - Rename COPY_REFLINK -> COPY_FR_REFLINK >>>> - Introduce COPY_FR_COPY flag >>>> - Flags == 0 is really COPY_FR_COPY|COPY_FR_REFLINK >>>> - Drop check for invalid flags >>>> - Move call to do_splice_direct() into a new function >>>> - Move rw_verify_area() checks into the new fallback function >>>> --- >>>> fs/read_write.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- >>>> include/linux/copy.h | 6 +++++ >>>> include/uapi/linux/Kbuild | 1 + >>>> include/uapi/linux/copy.h | 7 ++++++ >>>> 4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/copy.h >>>> create mode 100644 include/uapi/linux/copy.h >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c >>>> index 363bd3e..ba24884 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/read_write.c >>>> +++ b/fs/read_write.c >>>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> +#include >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> @@ -1329,6 +1330,29 @@ COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE4(sendfile64, int, out_fd, int, in_fd, >>>> } >>>> #endif >>>> >>>> +static ssize_t vfs_copy_file_pagecache(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, >>>> + struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, >>>> + size_t len) >>>> +{ >>>> + ssize_t ret; >>>> + >>>> + ret = rw_verify_area(READ, file_in, &pos_in, len); >>>> + if (ret >= 0) { >>>> + len = ret; >>>> + ret = rw_verify_area(WRITE, file_out, &pos_out, len); >>>> + if (ret >= 0) >>>> + len = ret; >>>> + } >>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>> + return ret; >>>> + >>>> + file_start_write(file_out); >>>> + ret = do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out, len, 0); >>>> + file_end_write(file_out); >>>> + >>>> + return ret; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> /* >>>> * copy_file_range() differs from regular file read and write in that it >>>> * specifically allows return partial success. When it does so is up to >>>> @@ -1338,34 +1362,17 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, >>>> struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out, >>>> size_t len, int flags) >>>> { >>>> - struct inode *inode_in; >>>> - struct inode *inode_out; >>>> ssize_t ret; >>>> >>>> - if (flags) >>>> - return -EINVAL; >>>> - >>>> - /* copy_file_range allows full ssize_t len, ignoring MAX_RW_COUNT */ >>>> - ret = rw_verify_area(READ, file_in, &pos_in, len); >>>> - if (ret >= 0) >>>> - ret = rw_verify_area(WRITE, file_out, &pos_out, len); >>>> - if (ret < 0) >>>> - return ret; >>>> + if (flags == 0) >>>> + flags = COPY_FR_COPY | COPY_FR_REFLINK; >>> >>> This function must return -EINVAL if any of the undefined flags bits are >>> set. >> >> Sure, I'll add that. >> >>> >>>> >>>> if (!(file_in->f_mode & FMODE_READ) || >>>> !(file_out->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) || >>>> (file_out->f_flags & O_APPEND) || >>>> - !file_out->f_op || !file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) >>>> + !file_in->f_op) >>>> return -EBADF; >>>> >>>> - inode_in = file_inode(file_in); >>>> - inode_out = file_inode(file_out); >>>> - >>>> - /* make sure offsets don't wrap and the input is inside i_size */ >>>> - if (pos_in + len < pos_in || pos_out + len < pos_out || >>>> - pos_in + len > i_size_read(inode_in)) >>>> - return -EINVAL; >>>> - >>>> if (len == 0) >>>> return 0; >>>> >>>> @@ -1373,8 +1380,13 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in, >>>> if (ret) >>>> return ret; >>>> >>>> - ret = file_out->f_op->copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out, >>>> - len, flags); >>>> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; >>>> + if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range) >>>> + ret = file_out->f_op->copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, >>>> + pos_out, len, flags); >>>> + if ((ret < 0) && (flags & COPY_FR_COPY)) >>>> + ret = vfs_copy_file_pagecache(file_in, pos_in, file_out, >>>> + pos_out, len); >>>> if (ret > 0) { >>>> fsnotify_access(file_in); >>>> add_rchar(current, ret); >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/copy.h b/include/linux/copy.h >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 0000000..fd54543 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/include/linux/copy.h >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ >>>> +#ifndef _LINUX_COPY_H >>>> +#define _LINUX_COPY_H >>>> + >>>> +#include >>>> + >>>> +#endif /* _LINUX_COPY_H */ >>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/Kbuild b/include/uapi/linux/Kbuild >>>> index 70ff1d9..d46830a 100644 >>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/Kbuild >>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/Kbuild >>>> @@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ header-y += coda_psdev.h >>>> header-y += coff.h >>>> header-y += connector.h >>>> header-y += const.h >>>> +header-y += copy.h >>>> header-y += cramfs_fs.h >>>> header-y += cuda.h >>>> header-y += cyclades.h >>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/copy.h b/include/uapi/linux/copy.h >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 0000000..2da59a8 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/copy.h >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ >>>> +#ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_COPY_H >>>> +#define _UAPI_LINUX_COPY_H >>>> + >>>> +#define COPY_FR_COPY (1 << 0) /* Only do a pagecache copy. */ >>>> +#define COPY_FR_REFLINK (1 << 1) /* Only make a reflink. */ >>> >>> Could I have a COPY_FR_DEDUPE flag too, please? >>> >>> (I don't mind adding it myself when I get around to hooking up XFS, but I >>> was hoping to get it in during the first round). >> >> I guess I can, but only iff everybody has agreed on using copy for dedupes >> instead of somethink like fallocate. > > I don't see how fallocate could even handle userspace-directed deduplication > since the dedupe operation compares two file ranges and reflinks them if the > contents match whereas fallocate only operates on a single file range. > > A single file range would work if userspace was telling the kernel to start a > lengthy search for all duplicates of a particular file's range, but ... > yuck. > > (Granted, the btrfs extent_same ioctl lets userspace call dedupe on multiple > files simultaneously, but that's for another day.) > Agreed, having something equivalent to reflinking would be the most sensible interface for deduplicating two files. I can however see fallocate possibly having some value when in-band deduplication is considered (ie, use fallocate to tell the system to include/exclude certain file ranges from in-band deduplication).