xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: falloc vs reflink revisited

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: falloc vs reflink revisited
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 08:42:15 -0800
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160302155007.GB7125@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20160302155007.GB7125@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 07:50:07AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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?

Back in the day I had a new FALLOC_FL_FUNSHARE_RANGE flag to force-cow
a bunch of file blocks.  I don't mind reintroducing it.

Just think of all the fun we can share! :P

--D

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>