From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25651C432C0 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28A320748 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:12:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1574082764; bh=WMe0I3EG4ps7xAe3DkVvXD3fbqLLGFm0wowZjHciiQY=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=QX9xuTICAbxTq1uVZRt0ria+BnBxlN54VCqIUrI0faY4CtYWJdYh0Y1pZa4lAsAb+ 0iy0nlL0Z0Mzxr7klZ/Mjh0aviZF4nQ7s5o7wly1pnETQdvaDRjmTJ87eFMXnUcclm 2RSW3XeKWrM87CpOxbVJMfxYybEn57b99soHByJ0= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726776AbfKRNMm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 08:12:42 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:46792 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726178AbfKRNMm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 08:12:42 -0500 Received: from tleilax.poochiereds.net (68-20-15-154.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net [68.20.15.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F9C52071C; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:12:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1574082761; bh=WMe0I3EG4ps7xAe3DkVvXD3fbqLLGFm0wowZjHciiQY=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=z/L6foljQByrauIjOI06JjV8sgoV4yE3qF1V9DNieqEgkqN2ps64CE18YqzmwQv4i z2mVqVGNQpcTGHmH5ckJdaAtPTEQeIuWWKWG31lyolu1lbZ5YeSb180Ee89ofrta0r xBOPuP6/qICXsw0aMUdRPj+r3qCI7L7Hq2m9bZ4w= Message-ID: <3dc2df0ba5776fb0f7aaac3a099a938823ed0ebf.camel@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] ceph: add new obj copy OSD Op From: Jeff Layton To: Luis Henriques , Sage Weil , Ilya Dryomov , "Yan, Zheng" , Gregory Farnum Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 08:12:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20191118120935.7013-1-lhenriques@suse.com> References: <20191118120935.7013-1-lhenriques@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.1 (3.34.1-1.fc31) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 12:09 +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: > Hi, > > Before going ahead with a pull-request for ceph I would like to make sure > we're all on the same page regarding the final fix for this problem. > Thus, following this email, I'm sending 2 patches: one for ceph OSDs and > the another for the kernel client. > > * osd: add new 'copy-from-notrunc' operation > This patch shall be applied to ceph master after reverting commit > ba152435fd85 ("osd: add flag to prevent truncate_seq copy in copy-from > operation"). It adds a new operation that will be exactly the same as > the original 'copy-from' operation, but with the extra 2 parameters > (truncate_{seq,size}) > > * ceph: switch copy_file_range to 'copy-from-notrunc' operation > This will make the kernel client use the new OSD op in > copy_file_range. One extra thing that could probably be added is > changing the mount options to NOCOPYFROM if the first call to > ceph_osdc_copy_from() fails. > I probably wouldn't change the mount options to be different from what was initially specified. How about just disable copy_file_range internally for that superblock, and then pr_notice a message that says that copy_file_range is being autodisabled. If they mount with '-o nocopyfrom' that will make the warning go away. > Does this look good, or did I missed something from the previous > discussion? > > (One advantage of this approach: the OSD patch can be easily backported!) > Yep, I think this looks like a _much_ simpler approach to the problem. -- Jeff Layton