Re: [PATCH v1 0/8] VFS: In-kernel copy system call

[Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@netapp.com>]

On 09/08/2015 06:39 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:45:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:03:09PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>>> On 08/09/15 20:10, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Anna Schumaker
>>>>> <Anna.Schumaker@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/08/2015 11:21 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>>>>>> I see copy_file_range() is a reflink() on BTRFS?
>>>>>>> That's a bit surprising, as it avoids the copy completely.
>>>>>>> cp(1) for example considered doing a BTRFS clone by default,
>>>>>>> but didn't due to expectations that users actually wanted
>>>>>>> the data duplicated on disk for resilience reasons,
>>>>>>> and for performance reasons so that write latencies were
>>>>>>> restricted to the copy operation, rather than being
>>>>>>> introduced at usage time as the dest file is CoW'd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If reflink() is a possibility for copy_file_range()
>>>>>>> then could it be done optionally with a flag?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea is that filesystems get to choose how to handle copies in the
>>>>>> default case.  BTRFS could do a reflink, but NFS could do a server side
>>>
>>> Eww, different default behaviors depending on the filesystem. :)
>>>
>>>>>> copy instead.  I can change the default behavior to only do a data copy
>>>>>> (unless the reflink flag is specified) instead, if that is desirable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does everybody think?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the best you could do is to have a hint asking politely for
>>>>> the data to be deep-copied.  After all, some filesystems reserve the
>>>>> right to transparently deduplicate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, on a true COW filesystem (e.g. btrfs sometimes), there may be no
>>>>> advantage to deep copying unless you actually want two copies for
>>>>> locality reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. The relink and server side copy are separate things.
>>>> There's no advantage to not doing a server side copy,
>>>> but as mentioned there may be advantages to doing deep copies on BTRFS
>>>> (another reason not previous mentioned in this thread, would be
>>>> to avoid ENOSPC errors at some time in the future).
>>>>
>>>> So having control over the deep copy seems useful.
>>>> It's debatable whether ALLOW_REFLINK should be on/off by default
>>>> for copy_file_range().  I'd be inclined to have such a setting off by default,
>>>> but cp(1) at least will work with whatever is chosen.
>>>
>>> So far it looks like people are interested in at least these "make data appear
>>> in this other place" filesystem operations:
>>>
>>> 1. reflink
>>> 2. reflink, but only if the contents are the same (dedupe)
>>
>> What I meant by this was: if you ask for "regular copy", you may end
>> up with a reflink anyway.  Anyway, how can you reflink a range and
>> have the contents *not* be the same?
> 
> reflink forcibly remaps fd_dest's range to fd_src's range.  If they didn't
> match before, they will afterwards.
> 
> dedupe remaps fd_dest's range to fd_src's range only if they match, of course.
> 
> Perhaps I should have said "...if the contents are the same before the call"?
> 
>>
>>> 3. regular copy
>>> 4. regular copy, but make the hardware do it for us
>>> 5. regular copy, but require a second copy on the media (no-dedupe)
>>
>> If this comes from me, I have no desire to ever use this as a flag.
> 
> I meant (5) as a "disable auto-dedupe for this operation" flag, not as
> a "reallocate all the shared blocks now" op...
> 
>> If someone wants to use chattr or some new operation to say "make this
>> range of this file belong just to me for purpose of optimizing future
>> writes", then sure, go for it, with the understanding that there are
>> plenty of filesystems for which that doesn't even make sense.
> 
> "Unshare these blocks" sounds more like something fallocate could do.
> 
> So far in my XFS reflink playground, it seems that using the defrag tool to
> un-cow a file makes most sense.  AFAICT the XFS and ext4 defraggers copy a
> fragmented file's data to a second file and use a 'swap extents' operation,
> after which the donor file is unlinked.
> 
> Hey, if this syscall turns into a more generic "do something involving two
> (fd:off:len) (fd:off:len) tuples" call, I guess we could throw in "swap
> extents" as a 7th operation, to refactor the ioctls.  <smirk>
> 
>>
>>> 6. regular copy, but don't CoW (eatmyothercopies) (joke)
>>>
>>> (Please add whatever ops I missed.)
>>>
>>> I think I can see a case for letting (4) fall back to (3) since (4) is an
>>> optimization of (3).
>>>
>>> However, I particularly don't like the idea of (1) falling back to (3-5).
>>> Either the kernel can satisfy a request or it can't, but let's not just
>>> assume that we should transmogrify one type of request into another.  Userspace
>>> should decide if a reflink failure should turn into one of the copy variants,
>>> depending on whether the user wants to spread allocation costs over rewrites or
>>> pay it all up front.  Also, if we allow reflink to fall back to copy, how do
>>> programs find out what actually took place?  Or do we simply not allow them to
>>> find out?
>>>
>>> Also, programs that expect reflink either to finish or fail quickly might be
>>> surprised if it's possible for reflink to take a longer time than usual and
>>> with the side effect that a deep(er) copy was made.
>>>
>>> I guess if someone asks for both (1) and (3) we can do the fallback in the
>>> kernel, like how we handle it right now.
>>>
>>
>> I think we should focus on what the actual legit use cases might be.
>> Certainly we want to support a mode that's "reflink or fail".  We
>> could have these flags:
>>
>> COPY_FILE_RANGE_ALLOW_REFLINK
>> COPY_FILE_RANGE_ALLOW_COPY
>>
>> Setting neither gets -EINVAL.  Setting both works as is.  Setting just
>> ALLOW_REFLINK will fail if a reflink can't be supported.  Setting just
>> ALLOW_COPY will make a best-effort attempt not to reflink but
>> expressly permits reflinking in cases where either (a) plain old
>> write(2) might also result in a reflink or (b) there is no advantage
>> to not reflinking.
> 
> I don't agree with having a 'copy' flag that can reflink when we also have a
> 'reflink' flag.  I guess I just don't like having a flag with different
> meanings depending on context.
> 
> Users should be able to get the default behavior by passing '0' for flags, so
> provide FORBID_REFLINK and FORBID_COPY flags to turn off those behaviors, with
> an admonishment that one should only use them if they have a goooood reason.
> Passing neither gets you reflink-xor-copy, which is what I think we both want
> in the general case.

I agree here that 0 for flags should do something useful, and I wanted to double check if reflink-xor-copy is a good default behavior.

> 
> FORBID_REFLINK = 1
> FORBID_COPY = 2

I don't like the idea of using flags to forbid behavior.  I think it would be more straightforward to have flags like REFLINK_ONLY or COPY_ONLY so users can tell us what they want, instead of what they don't want.

While I'm thinking about flags, COPY_FILE_RANGE_REFLINK_ONLY would be a bit of a mouthful.  Does anybody have suggestions for ways that I could make this shorter?

Thanks,
Anna

> CHECK_SAME = 4
> HW_COPY = 8
> 
> DEDUPE = (FORBID_COPY | CHECK_SAME)
> 
> What do you say to that?
> 
>> An example of (b) would be a filesystem backed by deduped
>> thinly-provisioned storage that can't do anything about ENOSPC because
>> it doesn't control it in the first place.
>>
>> Another option would be to split up the copy case into "I expect to
>> overwrite a lot of the target file soon, so (c) try to commit space
>> for that or (d) try to make it time-efficient".  Of course, (d) is
>> irrelevant on filesystems with no random access (nvdimms, for
>> example).
>>
>> I guess the tl;dr is that I'm highly skeptical of any use for
>> disallowing reflinking other than forcibly committing space in cases
>> where committing space actually means something.
> 
> That's more or less where I was going too. :)
> 
> --D
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html