From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121667F89 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:27:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD21304048 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:27:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [195.92.253.2]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Lsn8bsmGdF9qkKE1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 00:27:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:27:30 +0000 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] splice: locking changes and code refactoring Message-ID: <20140118082730.GH10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20131212181459.994196463@bombadil.infradead.org> <20140113141416.GA30117@infradead.org> <20140113235646.GR10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20140114132207.GA25170@infradead.org> <20140114172033.GU10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20140118064040.GE10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20140118074649.GF10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140118074649.GF10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jens Axboe , Steve French , Sage Weil , Mark Fasheh , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Christoph Hellwig , Joel Becker , linux-fsdevel , David Miller On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 07:46:49AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:22:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > > > > > Objections, comments? > > > > I certainly object to the "map, then unmap" approach. No VM games. [snip] > > But if it can be done more naturally as a writev, then that may well > > be ok. As long as we're talking about just the > > default_file_splice_write() case, and people who want to do special > > things with page movement can continue to do so.. > > The thing is, after such change default_file_splice_write() is no worse than > generic_file_splice_write(). The only instances that really want something > else are the ones that try to steal pages (e.g. virtio_console, fuse miscdev) > or sockets, with their "do DMA from the sodding page, don't copy it at > anywhere" ->sendpage() method. IOW, ones those special things you are > talking about. Normal filesystems do not - not on pipe-to-file splice. > file-to-pipe - sure, that one plays with pagecache and tries hard to > do zero-copy, but that's ->splice_read(), not ->splice_write()... BTW, would sockets benefit from having ->sendpages() that would take an array of (page, offset, len) triples? It would be trivial to do and some of the helpers that are falling out of writing that writev-based default_file_splice_write() look like they could be reused for calling that one... Dave? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs