Re: [RFC] extending splice for copy offloading

Ric Wheeler
2013-09-30T14:53:35Z

On 09/30/2013 10:51 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>>> My other worry is about interruptibility/restartability. Ideas?
>>>
>>> What happens on splice(from, to, 4G) and it's a non-reflink copy?
>>> Can the page cache copy be made restartable? Or should splice() be
>>> allowed to return a short count? What happens on (non-reflink) remote
>>> copies and huge request sizes?
>> If I were writing an application that required copies to be restartable,
>> I'd probably use the largest possible range in the reflink case but
>> break the copy into smaller chunks in the splice case.
>>
> The app really doesn't want to care about that. And it doesn't want
> to care about restartability, etc.. It's something the *kernel* has
> to care about. You just can't have uninterruptible syscalls that
> sleep for a "long" time, otherwise first you'll just have annoyed
> users pressing ^C in vain; then, if the sleep is even longer, warnings
> about task sleeping too long.
>
> One idea is letting splice() return a short count, and so the app can
> safely issue SIZE_MAX requests and the kernel can decide if it can
> copy the whole file in one go or if it wants to do it in smaller
> chunks.
>
> Thanks,
> Miklos

You cannot rely on a short count. That implies that an offloaded copy starts at
byte 0 and the short count first bytes are all valid.

I don't believe that is in fact required by all (any?) versions of the spec :)

Best just to fail and restart the whole operation.

Ric