From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Btrfs: make a source length of 0 imply EOF for dedupe
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:07:48 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1479427384.git.osandov@fb.com> (raw)
From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
This is the follow-up to the discussions here [1] and here [2] that
makes Btrfs treat a src_length of 0 to dedupe as "until EOF". The
implementation is straightforward, but there are a few catches that
convinced me to post this as an RFC:
1. We still don't know for sure whether userspace cares about the
original Btrfs behavior. Darrick and I both seem to think not, but
hopefully someone will speak up if it matters to them.
2. When doing the implicit EOF, XFS returns 0 for bytes_deduped. I
copied this in my implementation, but I'm guessing that's a bug
rather than a feature.
3. Both XFS and Btrfs cap each dedupe operation to 16MB, but the
implicit EOF gets around this in the existing XFS implementation. I
copied this for the Btrfs implementation.
So now we have 3 options:
a) Apply these patches as-is.
b) Fix XFS to both return the actual bytes_deduped and cap the length
for the EOF case. Do the same for Btrfs.
c) Make XFS consistent with the existing Btrfs behavior.
I'm starting to lean towards option c after writing this cover letter,
but I might as well send these out and get a second opinion.
Thanks!
1: http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=146828374631829&w=2
2: http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=147694962912532&w=2
Omar Sandoval (2):
Btrfs: refactor btrfs_extent_same() slightly
Btrfs: make a source length of 0 imply EOF for dedupe
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
--
2.10.2
next reply other threads:[~2016-11-18 0:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-18 0:07 Omar Sandoval [this message]
2016-11-18 0:07 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] Btrfs: refactor btrfs_extent_same() slightly Omar Sandoval
2016-11-18 3:22 ` Qu Wenruo
2016-11-18 0:07 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: make a source length of 0 imply EOF for dedupe Omar Sandoval
2016-11-18 5:38 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] " Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-22 21:17 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-11-23 2:02 ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-23 2:44 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-11-24 5:16 ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-23 4:26 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-23 13:55 ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-23 22:13 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-23 23:14 ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-23 23:53 ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-24 1:26 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-11-25 4:20 ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-28 17:58 ` Darrick J. Wong
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=cover.1479427384.git.osandov@fb.com \
--to=osandov@osandov.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.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).