From: Zygo Blaxell <ce3g8jdj@umail.furryterror.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Btrfs: make a source length of 0 imply EOF for dedupe
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 23:20:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161125042038.GF8685@hungrycats.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161124012618.GH23680@birch.djwong.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1264 bytes --]
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 05:26:18PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
[...]
> Keep in mind that the number of bytes deduped is returned to userspace
> via file_dedupe_range.info[x].bytes_deduped, so a properly functioning
> userspace program actually /can/ detect that its 128MB request got cut
> down to only 16MB and re-issue the request with the offsets moved up by
> 16MB. The dedupe client in xfs_io (see dedupe_ioctl() in io/reflink.c)
> implements this strategy. duperemove (the only other user I know of)
> also does this.
>
> So it's really no big deal to increase the limit beyond 16MB, eliminate
> it entirely, or even change it to cap the total request size while
> dropping the per-item IO limit.
>
> As I mentioned in my other reply, the only hesitation I have for not
> killing XFS_MAX_DEDUPE_LEN is that I feel that 2GB is enough IO for a
> single ioctl call.
Everything's relative. btrfs has ioctls that will do hundreds of
terabytes of IO and take months to run. 2GB of data is nothing.
Deduping entire 100TB files with a single ioctl call makes as much
sense to me as reflink copying them with a single ioctl call. The only
reason I see to keep the limit is to work around something wrong with
the implementation.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-25 4:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-18 0:07 [RFC PATCH 0/2] Btrfs: make a source length of 0 imply EOF for dedupe Omar Sandoval
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 [this message]
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=20161125042038.GF8685@hungrycats.org \
--to=ce3g8jdj@umail.furryterror.org \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=osandov@osandov.com \
--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).