[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
On 01/12/2011 07:44 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:13:42PM -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner<> wrote:
>>> The historical reason for such behaviour existing in XFS was that in
>>> 1997 the CPU and IO latency cost of unwritten extent conversion was
>>> significant,
> .....
>>>> (Take for example a trusted cluster filesystem backend that checks the
>>>> object checksum before returning any data to the user; and if the
>>>> check fails the cluster file system will try to use some other replica
>>>> stored on some other server.)
>>> IOWs, all they want to do is avoid the unwritten extent conversion
>>> overhead. Time has shown that a bad security/performance tradeoff
>>> decision was made 13 years ago in XFS, so I see little reason to
>>> repeat it for ext4 today....
>> I'd make use of FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA. It's not the CPU overhead
>> of extent conversion. It's that extent conversion causes more metadata
>> operations than what you'd have otherwise,
> Yes, that's the "IO latency" part of the cost I mentioned above.
>> which means systems that
>> want to use O_DIRECT and make sure the data doesn't go away either
>> have to write O_DIRECT|O_DSYNC or need to call fdatasync().
> Seriously, we tell application writers _all the time_ that they
> *must* use fsync/fdatasync to guarantee their data is on stable
> storage and that they cannot rely on side-effects of filesystem or
> storage specific behaviours (like ext3 ordered mode) to do that job
> for them.
> You're suggesting that by introducing FALLOC_FL_EXPOSE_OLD_DATA,
> applications can rely on filesystem/storage specific behaviour to
> guarantee data is on stable storage without the use of
> fdatasync/fsync. Wht you describe is definitely storage specific,
> because volatile write caches still needs the fdatasync to issue a
> cache flush.
> Do you see the same conflict here that I do?

The very concept seems quite "non-enterprise". I also agree that the cost of
maintaining extra mount options (and code) for something that no sane end user
would ever do seems to be a loss.

Why wouldn't you want to convert the punched hole to an unwritten extent?



 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-28 19:15    [W:0.053 / U:10.004 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site