Chen Yang
2013-Jan-23 11:04 UTC
[PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for, btrfs-send mechanism
From: Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:21:51 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for
btrfs-send mechanism
When sending a file with sparse or pre-allocated part,
these parts will be sent as ZERO streams, and it''s unnecessary.
There are two ways to improve this, one is just skip the EMPTY parts,
and the other one is to add a punch command to send, when an EMPTY parts
was detected. But considering a case of incremental sends, if we choose
the first one, when a hole got punched into the file after the initial
send, the data will be unchanged on the receiving side when received
incrementally. So the second choice is right.
Signed-off-by: Cheng Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
fs/btrfs/send.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
fs/btrfs/send.h | 3 +-
2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c
index 5445454..31e9aef 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
@@ -3585,6 +3585,52 @@ out:
return ret;
}
+static int send_punch(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 offset, u32 len)
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+ struct fs_path *p;
+ mm_segment_t old_fs;
+
+ p = fs_path_alloc(sctx);
+ if (!p)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ /*
+ * vfs normally only accepts user space buffers for security reasons.
+ * we only read from the file and also only provide the read_buf buffer
+ * to vfs. As this buffer does not come from a user space call, it''s
+ * ok to temporary allow kernel space buffers.
+ */
+ old_fs = get_fs();
+ set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
+
+verbose_printk("btrfs: send_fallocate offset=%llu, len=%d\n", offset,
len);
+
+ ret = open_cur_inode_file(sctx);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto out;
+
+ ret = begin_cmd(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto out;
+
+ ret = get_cur_path(sctx, sctx->cur_ino, sctx->cur_inode_gen, p);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto out;
+
+ TLV_PUT_PATH(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_PATH, p);
+ TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_FILE_OFFSET, offset);
+ TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_SIZE, len);
+
+ ret = send_cmd(sctx);
+
+tlv_put_failure:
+out:
+ fs_path_free(sctx, p);
+ set_fs(old_fs);
+ return ret;
+}
+
/*
* Read some bytes from the current inode/file and send a write command to
* user space.
@@ -3718,6 +3764,7 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx,
u64 pos = 0;
u64 len;
u32 l;
+ u64 bytenr;
u8 type;
ei = btrfs_item_ptr(path->nodes[0], path->slots[0],
@@ -3731,8 +3778,19 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx,
* sure to send the whole thing
*/
len = PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN(len);
- } else {
+ } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_REG) {
len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei);
+ bytenr = btrfs_file_extent_disk_bytenr(path->nodes[0], ei);
+ if (bytenr == 0) {
+ ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len);
+ goto out;
+ }
+ } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_PREALLOC) {
+ len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei);
+ ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len);
+ goto out;
+ } else {
+ BUG();
}
if (offset + len > sctx->cur_inode_size)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.h b/fs/btrfs/send.h
index 1bf4f32..659ac8f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/send.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.h
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
#include "ctree.h"
#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_MAGIC "btrfs-stream"
-#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 1
+#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 2
#define BTRFS_SEND_BUF_SIZE (1024 * 64)
#define BTRFS_SEND_READ_SIZE (1024 * 48)
@@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ enum btrfs_send_cmd {
BTRFS_SEND_C_WRITE,
BTRFS_SEND_C_CLONE,
+ BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH,
BTRFS_SEND_C_TRUNCATE,
BTRFS_SEND_C_CHMOD,
BTRFS_SEND_C_CHOWN,
--
1.7.7.6
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alex Lyakas
2013-Jan-23 11:56 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for, btrfs-send mechanism
Hi, On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:> From: Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:21:51 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for > btrfs-send mechanism > > When sending a file with sparse or pre-allocated part, > these parts will be sent as ZERO streams, and it''s unnecessary. > > There are two ways to improve this, one is just skip the EMPTY parts, > and the other one is to add a punch command to send, when an EMPTY parts > was detected. But considering a case of incremental sends, if we choose > the first one, when a hole got punched into the file after the initial > send, the data will be unchanged on the receiving side when received > incrementally. So the second choice is right. > > Signed-off-by: Cheng Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/send.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > fs/btrfs/send.h | 3 +- > 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > index 5445454..31e9aef 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > @@ -3585,6 +3585,52 @@ out: > return ret; > } > > +static int send_punch(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 offset, u32 len) > +{ > + int ret = 0; > + struct fs_path *p; > + mm_segment_t old_fs; > + > + p = fs_path_alloc(sctx); > + if (!p) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + /* > + * vfs normally only accepts user space buffers for security reasons. > + * we only read from the file and also only provide the read_buf buffer > + * to vfs. As this buffer does not come from a user space call, it''s > + * ok to temporary allow kernel space buffers. > + */ > + old_fs = get_fs(); > + set_fs(KERNEL_DS); > + > +verbose_printk("btrfs: send_fallocate offset=%llu, len=%d\n", offset, len); > + > + ret = open_cur_inode_file(sctx); > + if (ret < 0) > + goto out; > + > + ret = begin_cmd(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH); > + if (ret < 0) > + goto out; > + > + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, sctx->cur_ino, sctx->cur_inode_gen, p); > + if (ret < 0) > + goto out; > + > + TLV_PUT_PATH(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_PATH, p); > + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_FILE_OFFSET, offset); > + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_SIZE, len); > + > + ret = send_cmd(sctx); > + > +tlv_put_failure: > +out: > + fs_path_free(sctx, p); > + set_fs(old_fs); > + return ret; > +} > + > /* > * Read some bytes from the current inode/file and send a write command to > * user space. > @@ -3718,6 +3764,7 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, > u64 pos = 0; > u64 len; > u32 l; > + u64 bytenr; > u8 type; > > ei = btrfs_item_ptr(path->nodes[0], path->slots[0], > @@ -3731,8 +3778,19 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, > * sure to send the whole thing > */ > len = PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN(len); > - } else { > + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_REG) { > len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); > + bytenr = btrfs_file_extent_disk_bytenr(path->nodes[0], ei); > + if (bytenr == 0) { > + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); > + goto out; > + } > + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_PREALLOC) { > + len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); > + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); > + goto out; > + } else { > + BUG(); > }Are these two cases really the same? In the bytenr == 0 we want to deallocate the range. While in the prealloc case, we want to ensure disk space allocation. Or am I mistaken? Looking at the receive side, you use the same command for both: ret = fallocate(r->write_fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, offset, len); Looking at btrfs_fallocate code, in that case it will always punch the hole: static long btrfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len) ... if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) return btrfs_punch_hole(inode, offset, len); So maybe you should have two different commands, or add a flag to distinguish between the two cases? Thanks, Alex.> > if (offset + len > sctx->cur_inode_size) > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.h b/fs/btrfs/send.h > index 1bf4f32..659ac8f 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/send.h > +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.h > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > #include "ctree.h" > > #define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_MAGIC "btrfs-stream" > -#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 1 > +#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 2 > > #define BTRFS_SEND_BUF_SIZE (1024 * 64) > #define BTRFS_SEND_READ_SIZE (1024 * 48) > @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ enum btrfs_send_cmd { > BTRFS_SEND_C_WRITE, > BTRFS_SEND_C_CLONE, > > + BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH, > BTRFS_SEND_C_TRUNCATE, > BTRFS_SEND_C_CHMOD, > BTRFS_SEND_C_CHOWN, > -- > 1.7.7.6 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alex Lyakas
2013-Jan-24 08:53 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for, btrfs-send mechanism
Hi Chen, with all due respect, what do you mean by "I see" and "OK for users"? The semantics of the fallocate API with/without the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag is not defined by me or you. As far as I understand, the file system *must* adhere to the semantics of this API, as defined elsewhere. Looking, for example, here: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fallocate.2.html "Allocating disk space The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() allocates and initializes to zero the disk space within the range specified by offset and len." "Deallocating file space Specifying the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag (available since Linux 2.6.38) in mode deallocates space (i.e., creates a hole) in the byte range starting at offset and continuing for len bytes. Within the specified range, partial file system blocks are zeroed, and whole file system blocks are removed from the file." These are clearly two different modes of operation, and I don''t think you or me can decide otherwise, at this point. However, I may be not knowledgeable enough to confirm this. Jan/Alexander, can you perhaps comment on this? Thanks, Alex. On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:> 于 2013-1-23 19:56, Alex Lyakas 写道: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> From: Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:21:51 +0800 >>> Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for >>> btrfs-send mechanism >>> >>> When sending a file with sparse or pre-allocated part, >>> these parts will be sent as ZERO streams, and it''s unnecessary. >>> >>> There are two ways to improve this, one is just skip the EMPTY parts, >>> and the other one is to add a punch command to send, when an EMPTY parts >>> was detected. But considering a case of incremental sends, if we choose >>> the first one, when a hole got punched into the file after the initial >>> send, the data will be unchanged on the receiving side when received >>> incrementally. So the second choice is right. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Cheng Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> --- >>> fs/btrfs/send.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> fs/btrfs/send.h | 3 +- >>> 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c >>> index 5445454..31e9aef 100644 >>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c >>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c >>> @@ -3585,6 +3585,52 @@ out: >>> return ret; >>> } >>> >>> +static int send_punch(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 offset, u32 len) >>> +{ >>> + int ret = 0; >>> + struct fs_path *p; >>> + mm_segment_t old_fs; >>> + >>> + p = fs_path_alloc(sctx); >>> + if (!p) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * vfs normally only accepts user space buffers for security reasons. >>> + * we only read from the file and also only provide the read_buf buffer >>> + * to vfs. As this buffer does not come from a user space call, it''s >>> + * ok to temporary allow kernel space buffers. >>> + */ >>> + old_fs = get_fs(); >>> + set_fs(KERNEL_DS); >>> + >>> +verbose_printk("btrfs: send_fallocate offset=%llu, len=%d\n", offset, len); >>> + >>> + ret = open_cur_inode_file(sctx); >>> + if (ret < 0) >>> + goto out; >>> + >>> + ret = begin_cmd(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH); >>> + if (ret < 0) >>> + goto out; >>> + >>> + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, sctx->cur_ino, sctx->cur_inode_gen, p); >>> + if (ret < 0) >>> + goto out; >>> + >>> + TLV_PUT_PATH(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_PATH, p); >>> + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_FILE_OFFSET, offset); >>> + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_SIZE, len); >>> + >>> + ret = send_cmd(sctx); >>> + >>> +tlv_put_failure: >>> +out: >>> + fs_path_free(sctx, p); >>> + set_fs(old_fs); >>> + return ret; >>> +} >>> + >>> /* >>> * Read some bytes from the current inode/file and send a write command to >>> * user space. >>> @@ -3718,6 +3764,7 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, >>> u64 pos = 0; >>> u64 len; >>> u32 l; >>> + u64 bytenr; >>> u8 type; >>> >>> ei = btrfs_item_ptr(path->nodes[0], path->slots[0], >>> @@ -3731,8 +3778,19 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, >>> * sure to send the whole thing >>> */ >>> len = PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN(len); >>> - } else { >>> + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_REG) { >>> len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); >>> + bytenr = btrfs_file_extent_disk_bytenr(path->nodes[0], ei); >>> + if (bytenr == 0) { >>> + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); >>> + goto out; >>> + } >>> + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_PREALLOC) { >>> + len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); >>> + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); >>> + goto out; >>> + } else { >>> + BUG(); >>> } >> >> Are these two cases really the same? In the bytenr == 0 we want to >> deallocate the range. While in the prealloc case, we want to ensure >> disk space allocation. Or am I mistaken? >> Looking at the receive side, you use the same command for both: >> ret = fallocate(r->write_fd, >> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, >> offset, len); >> >> Looking at btrfs_fallocate code, in that case it will always punch the hole: >> static long btrfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, >> loff_t offset, loff_t len) >> ... >> if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) >> return btrfs_punch_hole(inode, offset, len); >> >> So maybe you should have two different commands, or add a flag to >> distinguish between the two cases? >> >> Thanks, >> Alex. >> > > I see sparse and pre-allocated parts both as EMPTY hole, > and although different for a file, it''s OK for users. > > Thanks > >> >> >>> >>> if (offset + len > sctx->cur_inode_size) >>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.h b/fs/btrfs/send.h >>> index 1bf4f32..659ac8f 100644 >>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.h >>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.h >>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ >>> #include "ctree.h" >>> >>> #define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_MAGIC "btrfs-stream" >>> -#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 1 >>> +#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 2 >>> >>> #define BTRFS_SEND_BUF_SIZE (1024 * 64) >>> #define BTRFS_SEND_READ_SIZE (1024 * 48) >>> @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ enum btrfs_send_cmd { >>> BTRFS_SEND_C_WRITE, >>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CLONE, >>> >>> + BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH, >>> BTRFS_SEND_C_TRUNCATE, >>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CHMOD, >>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CHOWN, >>> -- >>> 1.7.7.6 >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Miao Xie
2013-Jan-24 11:39 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for, btrfs-send mechanism
On thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:53:17 +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote:> Hi Chen, > with all due respect, what do you mean by "I see" and "OK for users"? > The semantics of the fallocate API with/without the > FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag is not defined by me or you. As far as I > understand, the file system *must* adhere to the semantics of this > API, as defined elsewhere. > Looking, for example, here: > http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fallocate.2.html > > "Allocating disk space > The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() allocates > and initializes to zero the disk space within the range specified by > offset and len." > > "Deallocating file space > Specifying the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag (available since Linux > 2.6.38) in mode deallocates space (i.e., creates a hole) in the byte > range starting at offset and continuing for len bytes. Within the > specified range, partial file system blocks are zeroed, and whole file > system blocks are removed from the file." > > These are clearly two different modes of operation, and I don''t think > you or me can decide otherwise, at this point.I think send/receive commands just need ensure the content of the file is right, not the disk format. That is also the reason why the developers just send out the zero data when they meet a hole or pre-allocated extent. From this viewpoint, they are the same. Thanks Miao> > However, I may be not knowledgeable enough to confirm this. > Jan/Alexander, can you perhaps comment on this? > > Thanks, > Alex. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >> 于 2013-1-23 19:56, Alex Lyakas 写道: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>> From: Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:21:51 +0800 >>>> Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for >>>> btrfs-send mechanism >>>> >>>> When sending a file with sparse or pre-allocated part, >>>> these parts will be sent as ZERO streams, and it''s unnecessary. >>>> >>>> There are two ways to improve this, one is just skip the EMPTY parts, >>>> and the other one is to add a punch command to send, when an EMPTY parts >>>> was detected. But considering a case of incremental sends, if we choose >>>> the first one, when a hole got punched into the file after the initial >>>> send, the data will be unchanged on the receiving side when received >>>> incrementally. So the second choice is right. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Cheng Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>> --- >>>> fs/btrfs/send.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>>> fs/btrfs/send.h | 3 +- >>>> 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>> index 5445454..31e9aef 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>> @@ -3585,6 +3585,52 @@ out: >>>> return ret; >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static int send_punch(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 offset, u32 len) >>>> +{ >>>> + int ret = 0; >>>> + struct fs_path *p; >>>> + mm_segment_t old_fs; >>>> + >>>> + p = fs_path_alloc(sctx); >>>> + if (!p) >>>> + return -ENOMEM; >>>> + >>>> + /* >>>> + * vfs normally only accepts user space buffers for security reasons. >>>> + * we only read from the file and also only provide the read_buf buffer >>>> + * to vfs. As this buffer does not come from a user space call, it''s >>>> + * ok to temporary allow kernel space buffers. >>>> + */ >>>> + old_fs = get_fs(); >>>> + set_fs(KERNEL_DS); >>>> + >>>> +verbose_printk("btrfs: send_fallocate offset=%llu, len=%d\n", offset, len); >>>> + >>>> + ret = open_cur_inode_file(sctx); >>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>> + goto out; >>>> + >>>> + ret = begin_cmd(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH); >>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>> + goto out; >>>> + >>>> + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, sctx->cur_ino, sctx->cur_inode_gen, p); >>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>> + goto out; >>>> + >>>> + TLV_PUT_PATH(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_PATH, p); >>>> + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_FILE_OFFSET, offset); >>>> + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_SIZE, len); >>>> + >>>> + ret = send_cmd(sctx); >>>> + >>>> +tlv_put_failure: >>>> +out: >>>> + fs_path_free(sctx, p); >>>> + set_fs(old_fs); >>>> + return ret; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> /* >>>> * Read some bytes from the current inode/file and send a write command to >>>> * user space. >>>> @@ -3718,6 +3764,7 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, >>>> u64 pos = 0; >>>> u64 len; >>>> u32 l; >>>> + u64 bytenr; >>>> u8 type; >>>> >>>> ei = btrfs_item_ptr(path->nodes[0], path->slots[0], >>>> @@ -3731,8 +3778,19 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, >>>> * sure to send the whole thing >>>> */ >>>> len = PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN(len); >>>> - } else { >>>> + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_REG) { >>>> len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); >>>> + bytenr = btrfs_file_extent_disk_bytenr(path->nodes[0], ei); >>>> + if (bytenr == 0) { >>>> + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); >>>> + goto out; >>>> + } >>>> + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_PREALLOC) { >>>> + len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); >>>> + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); >>>> + goto out; >>>> + } else { >>>> + BUG(); >>>> } >>> >>> Are these two cases really the same? In the bytenr == 0 we want to >>> deallocate the range. While in the prealloc case, we want to ensure >>> disk space allocation. Or am I mistaken? >>> Looking at the receive side, you use the same command for both: >>> ret = fallocate(r->write_fd, >>> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, >>> offset, len); >>> >>> Looking at btrfs_fallocate code, in that case it will always punch the hole: >>> static long btrfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, >>> loff_t offset, loff_t len) >>> ... >>> if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) >>> return btrfs_punch_hole(inode, offset, len); >>> >>> So maybe you should have two different commands, or add a flag to >>> distinguish between the two cases? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alex. >>> >> >> I see sparse and pre-allocated parts both as EMPTY hole, >> and although different for a file, it''s OK for users. >> >> Thanks >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> if (offset + len > sctx->cur_inode_size) >>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.h b/fs/btrfs/send.h >>>> index 1bf4f32..659ac8f 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.h >>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.h >>>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ >>>> #include "ctree.h" >>>> >>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_MAGIC "btrfs-stream" >>>> -#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 1 >>>> +#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 2 >>>> >>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_BUF_SIZE (1024 * 64) >>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_READ_SIZE (1024 * 48) >>>> @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ enum btrfs_send_cmd { >>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_WRITE, >>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CLONE, >>>> >>>> + BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH, >>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_TRUNCATE, >>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CHMOD, >>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CHOWN, >>>> -- >>>> 1.7.7.6 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hugo Mills
2013-Jan-24 11:58 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for, btrfs-send mechanism
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 07:39:17PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:> On thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:53:17 +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote: > > Hi Chen, > > with all due respect, what do you mean by "I see" and "OK for users"? > > The semantics of the fallocate API with/without the > > FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag is not defined by me or you. As far as I > > understand, the file system *must* adhere to the semantics of this > > API, as defined elsewhere. > > Looking, for example, here: > > http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fallocate.2.html > > > > "Allocating disk space > > The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() allocates > > and initializes to zero the disk space within the range specified by > > offset and len." > > > > "Deallocating file space > > Specifying the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag (available since Linux > > 2.6.38) in mode deallocates space (i.e., creates a hole) in the byte > > range starting at offset and continuing for len bytes. Within the > > specified range, partial file system blocks are zeroed, and whole file > > system blocks are removed from the file." > > > > These are clearly two different modes of operation, and I don''t think > > you or me can decide otherwise, at this point. > > I think send/receive commands just need ensure the content of the file is > right, not the disk format. That is also the reason why the developers just > send out the zero data when they meet a hole or pre-allocated extent. From > this viewpoint, they are the same.I disagree on the "content vs representation" comment above. I would very much hope that the reference receive implementation can turn a string of zeroes (or a hole) back into a sparse file. As a user, I''d be quite irritated if, say, one of my sparse VM images ended up 5 times the size when I backed it up with send/receive, simply because it''s gone from holey to a huge bunch of zeroes. That particular issue can be dealt with at the receiver level, though. Hugo.> > However, I may be not knowledgeable enough to confirm this. > > Jan/Alexander, can you perhaps comment on this? > > > > Thanks, > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >> 于 2013-1-23 19:56, Alex Lyakas 写道: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >>>> From: Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > >>>> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:21:51 +0800 > >>>> Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for > >>>> btrfs-send mechanism > >>>> > >>>> When sending a file with sparse or pre-allocated part, > >>>> these parts will be sent as ZERO streams, and it''s unnecessary. > >>>> > >>>> There are two ways to improve this, one is just skip the EMPTY parts, > >>>> and the other one is to add a punch command to send, when an EMPTY parts > >>>> was detected. But considering a case of incremental sends, if we choose > >>>> the first one, when a hole got punched into the file after the initial > >>>> send, the data will be unchanged on the receiving side when received > >>>> incrementally. So the second choice is right. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Cheng Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> fs/btrfs/send.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > >>>> fs/btrfs/send.h | 3 +- > >>>> 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >>>> index 5445454..31e9aef 100644 > >>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > >>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >>>> @@ -3585,6 +3585,52 @@ out: > >>>> return ret; > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> +static int send_punch(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 offset, u32 len) > >>>> +{ > >>>> + int ret = 0; > >>>> + struct fs_path *p; > >>>> + mm_segment_t old_fs; > >>>> + > >>>> + p = fs_path_alloc(sctx); > >>>> + if (!p) > >>>> + return -ENOMEM; > >>>> + > >>>> + /* > >>>> + * vfs normally only accepts user space buffers for security reasons. > >>>> + * we only read from the file and also only provide the read_buf buffer > >>>> + * to vfs. As this buffer does not come from a user space call, it''s > >>>> + * ok to temporary allow kernel space buffers. > >>>> + */ > >>>> + old_fs = get_fs(); > >>>> + set_fs(KERNEL_DS); > >>>> + > >>>> +verbose_printk("btrfs: send_fallocate offset=%llu, len=%d\n", offset, len); > >>>> + > >>>> + ret = open_cur_inode_file(sctx); > >>>> + if (ret < 0) > >>>> + goto out; > >>>> + > >>>> + ret = begin_cmd(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH); > >>>> + if (ret < 0) > >>>> + goto out; > >>>> + > >>>> + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, sctx->cur_ino, sctx->cur_inode_gen, p); > >>>> + if (ret < 0) > >>>> + goto out; > >>>> + > >>>> + TLV_PUT_PATH(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_PATH, p); > >>>> + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_FILE_OFFSET, offset); > >>>> + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_SIZE, len); > >>>> + > >>>> + ret = send_cmd(sctx); > >>>> + > >>>> +tlv_put_failure: > >>>> +out: > >>>> + fs_path_free(sctx, p); > >>>> + set_fs(old_fs); > >>>> + return ret; > >>>> +} > >>>> + > >>>> /* > >>>> * Read some bytes from the current inode/file and send a write command to > >>>> * user space. > >>>> @@ -3718,6 +3764,7 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, > >>>> u64 pos = 0; > >>>> u64 len; > >>>> u32 l; > >>>> + u64 bytenr; > >>>> u8 type; > >>>> > >>>> ei = btrfs_item_ptr(path->nodes[0], path->slots[0], > >>>> @@ -3731,8 +3778,19 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, > >>>> * sure to send the whole thing > >>>> */ > >>>> len = PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN(len); > >>>> - } else { > >>>> + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_REG) { > >>>> len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); > >>>> + bytenr = btrfs_file_extent_disk_bytenr(path->nodes[0], ei); > >>>> + if (bytenr == 0) { > >>>> + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); > >>>> + goto out; > >>>> + } > >>>> + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_PREALLOC) { > >>>> + len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); > >>>> + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); > >>>> + goto out; > >>>> + } else { > >>>> + BUG(); > >>>> } > >>> > >>> Are these two cases really the same? In the bytenr == 0 we want to > >>> deallocate the range. While in the prealloc case, we want to ensure > >>> disk space allocation. Or am I mistaken? > >>> Looking at the receive side, you use the same command for both: > >>> ret = fallocate(r->write_fd, > >>> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, > >>> offset, len); > >>> > >>> Looking at btrfs_fallocate code, in that case it will always punch the hole: > >>> static long btrfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, > >>> loff_t offset, loff_t len) > >>> ... > >>> if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) > >>> return btrfs_punch_hole(inode, offset, len); > >>> > >>> So maybe you should have two different commands, or add a flag to > >>> distinguish between the two cases? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Alex. > >>> > >> > >> I see sparse and pre-allocated parts both as EMPTY hole, > >> and although different for a file, it''s OK for users. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> if (offset + len > sctx->cur_inode_size) > >>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.h b/fs/btrfs/send.h > >>>> index 1bf4f32..659ac8f 100644 > >>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.h > >>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.h > >>>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > >>>> #include "ctree.h" > >>>> > >>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_MAGIC "btrfs-stream" > >>>> -#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 1 > >>>> +#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 2 > >>>> > >>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_BUF_SIZE (1024 * 64) > >>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_READ_SIZE (1024 * 48) > >>>> @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ enum btrfs_send_cmd { > >>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_WRITE, > >>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CLONE, > >>>> > >>>> + BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH, > >>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_TRUNCATE, > >>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CHMOD, > >>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CHOWN,-- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk == PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- I gave up smoking, drinking and sex once. It was the scariest --- 20 minutes of my life.
Miao Xie
2013-Jan-24 12:13 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for, btrfs-send mechanism
On thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:58:13 +0000, Hugo Mills wrote:> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 07:39:17PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: >> On thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:53:17 +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote: >>> Hi Chen, >>> with all due respect, what do you mean by "I see" and "OK for users"? >>> The semantics of the fallocate API with/without the >>> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag is not defined by me or you. As far as I >>> understand, the file system *must* adhere to the semantics of this >>> API, as defined elsewhere. >>> Looking, for example, here: >>> http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fallocate.2.html >>> >>> "Allocating disk space >>> The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() allocates >>> and initializes to zero the disk space within the range specified by >>> offset and len." >>> >>> "Deallocating file space >>> Specifying the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag (available since Linux >>> 2.6.38) in mode deallocates space (i.e., creates a hole) in the byte >>> range starting at offset and continuing for len bytes. Within the >>> specified range, partial file system blocks are zeroed, and whole file >>> system blocks are removed from the file." >>> >>> These are clearly two different modes of operation, and I don''t think >>> you or me can decide otherwise, at this point. >> >> I think send/receive commands just need ensure the content of the file is >> right, not the disk format. That is also the reason why the developers just >> send out the zero data when they meet a hole or pre-allocated extent. From >> this viewpoint, they are the same. > > I disagree on the "content vs representation" comment above. I > would very much hope that the reference receive implementation can > turn a string of zeroes (or a hole) back into a sparse file. As a > user, I''d be quite irritated if, say, one of my sparse VM images ended > up 5 times the size when I backed it up with send/receive, simply > because it''s gone from holey to a huge bunch of zeroes. That > particular issue can be dealt with at the receiver level, though.My explanation is not clear, sorry! What I want to say is send command needn''t differentiate between a hole and a pre-allocated extent, because both of them are considered as zero. So just send out a hole even we meet a pre-allocated extent is OK, I think. Thanks Miao> > Hugo. > >>> However, I may be not knowledgeable enough to confirm this. >>> Jan/Alexander, can you perhaps comment on this? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alex. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>> 于 2013-1-23 19:56, Alex Lyakas 写道: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>>>> From: Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>>>> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:21:51 +0800 >>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for >>>>>> btrfs-send mechanism >>>>>> >>>>>> When sending a file with sparse or pre-allocated part, >>>>>> these parts will be sent as ZERO streams, and it''s unnecessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are two ways to improve this, one is just skip the EMPTY parts, >>>>>> and the other one is to add a punch command to send, when an EMPTY parts >>>>>> was detected. But considering a case of incremental sends, if we choose >>>>>> the first one, when a hole got punched into the file after the initial >>>>>> send, the data will be unchanged on the receiving side when received >>>>>> incrementally. So the second choice is right. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cheng Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> fs/btrfs/send.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>>>>> fs/btrfs/send.h | 3 +- >>>>>> 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>>>> index 5445454..31e9aef 100644 >>>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>>>> @@ -3585,6 +3585,52 @@ out: >>>>>> return ret; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> +static int send_punch(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 offset, u32 len) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + int ret = 0; >>>>>> + struct fs_path *p; >>>>>> + mm_segment_t old_fs; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + p = fs_path_alloc(sctx); >>>>>> + if (!p) >>>>>> + return -ENOMEM; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + /* >>>>>> + * vfs normally only accepts user space buffers for security reasons. >>>>>> + * we only read from the file and also only provide the read_buf buffer >>>>>> + * to vfs. As this buffer does not come from a user space call, it''s >>>>>> + * ok to temporary allow kernel space buffers. >>>>>> + */ >>>>>> + old_fs = get_fs(); >>>>>> + set_fs(KERNEL_DS); >>>>>> + >>>>>> +verbose_printk("btrfs: send_fallocate offset=%llu, len=%d\n", offset, len); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + ret = open_cur_inode_file(sctx); >>>>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>>>> + goto out; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + ret = begin_cmd(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH); >>>>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>>>> + goto out; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, sctx->cur_ino, sctx->cur_inode_gen, p); >>>>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>>>> + goto out; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + TLV_PUT_PATH(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_PATH, p); >>>>>> + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_FILE_OFFSET, offset); >>>>>> + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_SIZE, len); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + ret = send_cmd(sctx); >>>>>> + >>>>>> +tlv_put_failure: >>>>>> +out: >>>>>> + fs_path_free(sctx, p); >>>>>> + set_fs(old_fs); >>>>>> + return ret; >>>>>> +} >>>>>> + >>>>>> /* >>>>>> * Read some bytes from the current inode/file and send a write command to >>>>>> * user space. >>>>>> @@ -3718,6 +3764,7 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, >>>>>> u64 pos = 0; >>>>>> u64 len; >>>>>> u32 l; >>>>>> + u64 bytenr; >>>>>> u8 type; >>>>>> >>>>>> ei = btrfs_item_ptr(path->nodes[0], path->slots[0], >>>>>> @@ -3731,8 +3778,19 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, >>>>>> * sure to send the whole thing >>>>>> */ >>>>>> len = PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN(len); >>>>>> - } else { >>>>>> + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_REG) { >>>>>> len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); >>>>>> + bytenr = btrfs_file_extent_disk_bytenr(path->nodes[0], ei); >>>>>> + if (bytenr == 0) { >>>>>> + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); >>>>>> + goto out; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_PREALLOC) { >>>>>> + len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); >>>>>> + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); >>>>>> + goto out; >>>>>> + } else { >>>>>> + BUG(); >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Are these two cases really the same? In the bytenr == 0 we want to >>>>> deallocate the range. While in the prealloc case, we want to ensure >>>>> disk space allocation. Or am I mistaken? >>>>> Looking at the receive side, you use the same command for both: >>>>> ret = fallocate(r->write_fd, >>>>> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, >>>>> offset, len); >>>>> >>>>> Looking at btrfs_fallocate code, in that case it will always punch the hole: >>>>> static long btrfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, >>>>> loff_t offset, loff_t len) >>>>> ... >>>>> if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) >>>>> return btrfs_punch_hole(inode, offset, len); >>>>> >>>>> So maybe you should have two different commands, or add a flag to >>>>> distinguish between the two cases? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Alex. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I see sparse and pre-allocated parts both as EMPTY hole, >>>> and although different for a file, it''s OK for users. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> if (offset + len > sctx->cur_inode_size) >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.h b/fs/btrfs/send.h >>>>>> index 1bf4f32..659ac8f 100644 >>>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.h >>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.h >>>>>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ >>>>>> #include "ctree.h" >>>>>> >>>>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_MAGIC "btrfs-stream" >>>>>> -#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 1 >>>>>> +#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 2 >>>>>> >>>>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_BUF_SIZE (1024 * 64) >>>>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_READ_SIZE (1024 * 48) >>>>>> @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ enum btrfs_send_cmd { >>>>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_WRITE, >>>>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CLONE, >>>>>> >>>>>> + BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH, >>>>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_TRUNCATE, >>>>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CHMOD, >>>>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CHOWN, >-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hugo Mills
2013-Jan-24 12:41 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for, btrfs-send mechanism
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:13:34PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:> On thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:58:13 +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 07:39:17PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: > >> On thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:53:17 +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote: > >>> Hi Chen, > >>> with all due respect, what do you mean by "I see" and "OK for users"? > >>> The semantics of the fallocate API with/without the > >>> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag is not defined by me or you. As far as I > >>> understand, the file system *must* adhere to the semantics of this > >>> API, as defined elsewhere. > >>> Looking, for example, here: > >>> http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fallocate.2.html > >>> > >>> "Allocating disk space > >>> The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() allocates > >>> and initializes to zero the disk space within the range specified by > >>> offset and len." > >>> > >>> "Deallocating file space > >>> Specifying the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag (available since Linux > >>> 2.6.38) in mode deallocates space (i.e., creates a hole) in the byte > >>> range starting at offset and continuing for len bytes. Within the > >>> specified range, partial file system blocks are zeroed, and whole file > >>> system blocks are removed from the file." > >>> > >>> These are clearly two different modes of operation, and I don''t think > >>> you or me can decide otherwise, at this point. > >> > >> I think send/receive commands just need ensure the content of the file is > >> right, not the disk format. That is also the reason why the developers just > >> send out the zero data when they meet a hole or pre-allocated extent. From > >> this viewpoint, they are the same. > > > > I disagree on the "content vs representation" comment above. I > > would very much hope that the reference receive implementation can > > turn a string of zeroes (or a hole) back into a sparse file. As a > > user, I''d be quite irritated if, say, one of my sparse VM images ended > > up 5 times the size when I backed it up with send/receive, simply > > because it''s gone from holey to a huge bunch of zeroes. That > > particular issue can be dealt with at the receiver level, though. > > My explanation is not clear, sorry! What I want to say is send command needn''t > differentiate between a hole and a pre-allocated extent, because both of them > are considered as zero. So just send out a hole even we meet a pre-allocated > extent is OK, I think.Ah, gotcha. That sounds more sensible, and I agree with your point (for what little weight I carry -- I''m not as well-versed in the behaviour of fallocate as I might be). Hugo.> Thanks > Miao > > > > > Hugo. > > > >>> However, I may be not knowledgeable enough to confirm this. > >>> Jan/Alexander, can you perhaps comment on this? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Alex. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >>>> 于 2013-1-23 19:56, Alex Lyakas 写道: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >>>>>> From: Chen Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > >>>>>> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:21:51 +0800 > >>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for > >>>>>> btrfs-send mechanism > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When sending a file with sparse or pre-allocated part, > >>>>>> these parts will be sent as ZERO streams, and it''s unnecessary. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are two ways to improve this, one is just skip the EMPTY parts, > >>>>>> and the other one is to add a punch command to send, when an EMPTY parts > >>>>>> was detected. But considering a case of incremental sends, if we choose > >>>>>> the first one, when a hole got punched into the file after the initial > >>>>>> send, the data will be unchanged on the receiving side when received > >>>>>> incrementally. So the second choice is right. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cheng Yang <chenyang.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> fs/btrfs/send.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > >>>>>> fs/btrfs/send.h | 3 +- > >>>>>> 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >>>>>> index 5445454..31e9aef 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > >>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >>>>>> @@ -3585,6 +3585,52 @@ out: > >>>>>> return ret; > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +static int send_punch(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 offset, u32 len) > >>>>>> +{ > >>>>>> + int ret = 0; > >>>>>> + struct fs_path *p; > >>>>>> + mm_segment_t old_fs; > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + p = fs_path_alloc(sctx); > >>>>>> + if (!p) > >>>>>> + return -ENOMEM; > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + /* > >>>>>> + * vfs normally only accepts user space buffers for security reasons. > >>>>>> + * we only read from the file and also only provide the read_buf buffer > >>>>>> + * to vfs. As this buffer does not come from a user space call, it''s > >>>>>> + * ok to temporary allow kernel space buffers. > >>>>>> + */ > >>>>>> + old_fs = get_fs(); > >>>>>> + set_fs(KERNEL_DS); > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> +verbose_printk("btrfs: send_fallocate offset=%llu, len=%d\n", offset, len); > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + ret = open_cur_inode_file(sctx); > >>>>>> + if (ret < 0) > >>>>>> + goto out; > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + ret = begin_cmd(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH); > >>>>>> + if (ret < 0) > >>>>>> + goto out; > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + ret = get_cur_path(sctx, sctx->cur_ino, sctx->cur_inode_gen, p); > >>>>>> + if (ret < 0) > >>>>>> + goto out; > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + TLV_PUT_PATH(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_PATH, p); > >>>>>> + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_FILE_OFFSET, offset); > >>>>>> + TLV_PUT_U64(sctx, BTRFS_SEND_A_SIZE, len); > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + ret = send_cmd(sctx); > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> +tlv_put_failure: > >>>>>> +out: > >>>>>> + fs_path_free(sctx, p); > >>>>>> + set_fs(old_fs); > >>>>>> + return ret; > >>>>>> +} > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> /* > >>>>>> * Read some bytes from the current inode/file and send a write command to > >>>>>> * user space. > >>>>>> @@ -3718,6 +3764,7 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, > >>>>>> u64 pos = 0; > >>>>>> u64 len; > >>>>>> u32 l; > >>>>>> + u64 bytenr; > >>>>>> u8 type; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ei = btrfs_item_ptr(path->nodes[0], path->slots[0], > >>>>>> @@ -3731,8 +3778,19 @@ static int send_write_or_clone(struct send_ctx *sctx, > >>>>>> * sure to send the whole thing > >>>>>> */ > >>>>>> len = PAGE_CACHE_ALIGN(len); > >>>>>> - } else { > >>>>>> + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_REG) { > >>>>>> len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); > >>>>>> + bytenr = btrfs_file_extent_disk_bytenr(path->nodes[0], ei); > >>>>>> + if (bytenr == 0) { > >>>>>> + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); > >>>>>> + goto out; > >>>>>> + } > >>>>>> + } else if (type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_PREALLOC) { > >>>>>> + len = btrfs_file_extent_num_bytes(path->nodes[0], ei); > >>>>>> + ret = send_punch(sctx, offset, len); > >>>>>> + goto out; > >>>>>> + } else { > >>>>>> + BUG(); > >>>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> Are these two cases really the same? In the bytenr == 0 we want to > >>>>> deallocate the range. While in the prealloc case, we want to ensure > >>>>> disk space allocation. Or am I mistaken? > >>>>> Looking at the receive side, you use the same command for both: > >>>>> ret = fallocate(r->write_fd, > >>>>> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, > >>>>> offset, len); > >>>>> > >>>>> Looking at btrfs_fallocate code, in that case it will always punch the hole: > >>>>> static long btrfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, > >>>>> loff_t offset, loff_t len) > >>>>> ... > >>>>> if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) > >>>>> return btrfs_punch_hole(inode, offset, len); > >>>>> > >>>>> So maybe you should have two different commands, or add a flag to > >>>>> distinguish between the two cases? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Alex. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I see sparse and pre-allocated parts both as EMPTY hole, > >>>> and although different for a file, it''s OK for users. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> if (offset + len > sctx->cur_inode_size) > >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.h b/fs/btrfs/send.h > >>>>>> index 1bf4f32..659ac8f 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.h > >>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.h > >>>>>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > >>>>>> #include "ctree.h" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_MAGIC "btrfs-stream" > >>>>>> -#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 1 > >>>>>> +#define BTRFS_SEND_STREAM_VERSION 2 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_BUF_SIZE (1024 * 64) > >>>>>> #define BTRFS_SEND_READ_SIZE (1024 * 48) > >>>>>> @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ enum btrfs_send_cmd { > >>>>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_WRITE, > >>>>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CLONE, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> + BTRFS_SEND_C_PUNCH, > >>>>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_TRUNCATE, > >>>>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CHMOD, > >>>>>> BTRFS_SEND_C_CHOWN, > > >-- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk == PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- UNIX: British manufacturer of modular shelving units. ---
Jan Schmidt
2013-Jan-24 17:13 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for, btrfs-send mechanism
Hi Alex, On Thu, January 24, 2013 at 09:53 (+0100), Alex Lyakas wrote:> Looking, for example, here: > http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fallocate.2.html > > "Allocating disk space > The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() allocates > and initializes to zero the disk space within the range specified by > offset and len." > > "Deallocating file space > Specifying the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag (available since Linux > 2.6.38) in mode deallocates space (i.e., creates a hole) in the byte > range starting at offset and continuing for len bytes. Within the > specified range, partial file system blocks are zeroed, and whole file > system blocks are removed from the file." > > These are clearly two different modes of operation, and I don''t think > you or me can decide otherwise, at this point. > > However, I may be not knowledgeable enough to confirm this. > Jan/Alexander, can you perhaps comment on this?We don''t transfer the metadata itself and that''s for good reason. The data should look alike from a user''s point of view where possible. In places where we have no good solution, we make compromises (inode numbers come to mind). So, as a general rule: If possible with reasonable effort, I like to keep as much of the structure as possible. Therefore, I''d rather not see a sparse detector in any receiver out there; if it''s sparse, send it as sparse, and if it''s on disk, send it as zeros on disk. Handling of preallocated space with this rule is, well, arguable. For me, such space is more on disk than it''s not. Applications preallocating space might do so for a good reason, and I would not treat those blocks as if they were holes for send and receive. -Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alex Lyakas
2013-Jan-24 18:06 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for, btrfs-send mechanism
Hi Jan, On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Jan Schmidt <list.btrfs@jan-o-sch.net> wrote:> Hi Alex, > > On Thu, January 24, 2013 at 09:53 (+0100), Alex Lyakas wrote: >> Looking, for example, here: >> http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fallocate.2.html >> >> "Allocating disk space >> The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() allocates >> and initializes to zero the disk space within the range specified by >> offset and len." >> >> "Deallocating file space >> Specifying the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag (available since Linux >> 2.6.38) in mode deallocates space (i.e., creates a hole) in the byte >> range starting at offset and continuing for len bytes. Within the >> specified range, partial file system blocks are zeroed, and whole file >> system blocks are removed from the file." >> >> These are clearly two different modes of operation, and I don''t think >> you or me can decide otherwise, at this point. >> >> However, I may be not knowledgeable enough to confirm this. >> Jan/Alexander, can you perhaps comment on this? > > We don''t transfer the metadata itself and that''s for good reason. The data > should look alike from a user''s point of view where possible. In places where we > have no good solution, we make compromises (inode numbers come to mind). > > So, as a general rule: If possible with reasonable effort, I like to keep as > much of the structure as possible. Therefore, I''d rather not see a sparse > detector in any receiver out there; if it''s sparse, send it as sparse, and if > it''s on disk, send it as zeros on disk.Agree, but I don''t think we have any such thing. Receiver just obeys the commands in the stream, not tries to analyze them. Or perhaps you mean something else by "sparse detector"?> > Handling of preallocated space with this rule is, well, arguable. For me, such > space is more on disk than it''s not. Applications preallocating space might do > so for a good reason, and I would not treat those blocks as if they were holes > for send and receive.So, if I understand you correctly, you do suggest to distinguish between punch-hole and preallocate on send side (e.g., by using different send commands), and do appropriate things on the receive side by using/not using the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag to the fallocate API on the receive side. If yes, then this was also my opinion. Thanks! Alex.> > -Jan-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Jan Schmidt
2013-Jan-25 08:56 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Btrfs/send: sparse and pre-allocated file support for, btrfs-send mechanism
Hi Alex, On Thu, January 24, 2013 at 19:06 (+0100), Alex Lyakas wrote:> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Jan Schmidt <list.btrfs@jan-o-sch.net> wrote: >> We don''t transfer the metadata itself and that''s for good reason. The data >> should look alike from a user''s point of view where possible. In places where we >> have no good solution, we make compromises (inode numbers come to mind). >> >> So, as a general rule: If possible with reasonable effort, I like to keep as >> much of the structure as possible. Therefore, I''d rather not see a sparse >> detector in any receiver out there; if it''s sparse, send it as sparse, and if >> it''s on disk, send it as zeros on disk. > Agree, but I don''t think we have any such thing. Receiver just obeys > the commands in the stream, not tries to analyze them. Or perhaps you > mean something else by "sparse detector"?Sorry, I commented on the whole thread, in a single email. The above comment is more in the direction of --- On Thu, January 24, 2013 at 12:58 (+0100), Hugo Mills wrote:> I disagree on the "content vs representation" comment above. I > would very much hope that the reference receive implementation can > turn a string of zeroes (or a hole) back into a sparse file. As a > user, I''d be quite irritated if, say, one of my sparse VM images ended > up 5 times the size when I backed it up with send/receive, simply > because it''s gone from holey to a huge bunch of zeroes. That > particular issue can be dealt with at the receiver level, though.--->> Handling of preallocated space with this rule is, well, arguable. For me, such >> space is more on disk than it''s not. Applications preallocating space might do >> so for a good reason, and I would not treat those blocks as if they were holes >> for send and receive. > > So, if I understand you correctly, you do suggest to distinguish > between punch-hole and preallocate on send side (e.g., by using > different send commands), and do appropriate things on the receive > side by using/not using the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag to the fallocate > API on the receive side. If yes, then this was also my opinion.Yes :-) -Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html