| To: | "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | falloc vs reflink revisited |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:50:07 -0800 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) |
Hi Darrick, I know that I suggested unsharing blocks on fallocate, but it turns out this is causing problems. Applications expect falloc to be a fast metadata operation, and copying a potentially large number of blocks is against that expextation. This is especially bad for the NFS server, which should not be blocked for a long time in a synchronous operation. I think we'll have to remove the unshare and just fail the fallocate for a reflinked region for now. I still think it makes sense to expose an unshare operation, and we probably should make that anyother fallocate mode. Opininions? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: tidy up xfs_attr_shortform_list, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] xfs: don't hand out pNFS layouts for reflink inodes, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH] xfs: tidy up xfs_attr_shortform_list, Mateusz Guzik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: falloc vs reflink revisited, Darrick J. Wong |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |