linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 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

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

Thread overview: 38+ 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 ` [PATCH 2/6] XFS: handle hole punching via fallocate properly Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  1:22   ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  2:05     ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  4:21       ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 3/6] Ocfs2: " 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 ` [PATCH 5/6] Btrfs: " Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 10:05   ` Will Newton
2010-11-09 12:53     ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` [PATCH 6/6] Gfs2: " Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  1:12 ` [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate Dave Chinner
2010-11-09  2:10   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09  3:30   ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09  4:42     ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 21:41       ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09 21:53         ` Jan Kara
2010-11-09 23:40         ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-11 21:13           ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:30             ` Ted Ts'o
2011-01-12 11:48               ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 12:44             ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2011-01-28 18:13               ` Ric Wheeler
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
2010-11-16 11:16   ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:43     ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 12:52       ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 13:14         ` Jan Kara
2010-11-17  0:22           ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  2:11             ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-17  2:28               ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17  2:34                 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17  9:30                   ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17  9:19               ` Andreas Dilger
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 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).