[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#6131: [PATCH]: fiemap support for efficient sparse file copy

From: Joel Becker
Subject: bug#6131: [PATCH]: fiemap support for efficient sparse file copy
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:14:27 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11:30AM +0800, jeff.liu wrote:
> Joel Becker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:53:27AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> >> I haven't had time to look at it carefully, but here's a very brief
> >> review.  The code you sent, like what's in the fiemap branch, has
> >> a separate version of a chunk of copy.c that does both reading
> >> and writing and optimizes both reading and writing by invoking the fiemap 
> >> ioctls
> >> at strategic locations.  Instead, it would be better to have
> >> a module that separates out the efficient-read stuff by telling
> >> copy.c where the next significant input extent is, and then modify copy.c
> >> to use that module.  On hosts that do not support fiemap, the module
> >> would simply report the entire input file as that file's only extent.
> > 
> >     Precisely.  The sparse-core.c or whatever it is called shouldn't
> > be doing the copy, it should just provide:
> > 
> > handle = init_extent_scan(fd);
> > while (get_next_extent(handle, &extent_start, &extent_len)) {
> >     ...
> > }
> > close_extent_scan(handle);
> > 
> >     Then copy.c just implements this loop and the '...' part.
> > 
> > Joel
> > 
> yes, its better to separate copy and extent scan, and its not difficult to 
> implement.  But I was
> wondering to return an array of extents info or just return one extent info 
> for each scan?

        get_next_extent() just returns one extent, but the caller has no
idea what is hanging off of handle.  In fiemap, it could be a large
array of extents you've cached during init_extent_scan().  For Solaris
it might be some placeholder.

> I would like to work out an unique interface could work for both Linux and 
> Solaris, for Solaris
> SEEK_DATA/HOLES stuff, looks its convinent to just return next extent info 
> every time.
> But for fiemap, maybe its better to return an extents_info_array as currentt 
> design to reduce the
> ioctl(2)  calls.

        You don't need multiple ioctl(2) calls.  Here's a trivial

void *init_extent_scan(int fd)
    struct fiemap *handle;

    handle = malloc(sizeof(struct fiemap) +
                    (EXTENTS_PER_IOCTL * sizeof(struct fiemap_extent)));
    handle->fm_extent_count = EXTENTS_PER_IOCTL;
    if (!ioctl(fd, FS_IOC_FIEMAP, handle))
        return handle;

    if (lseek(fd, SEEK_HOLE) >= 0)
        return (void *)-1;

    return NULL;

loff_t get_next_extent(void *handle, loff_t *start, loff_t *len)
    if (handle == (void *)-1)
        /* Do SEEK_HOLE thing */
    else if (handle)
        return handle->fm_extents[next_one++];



Life's Little Instruction Book #497

        "Go down swinging."

Joel Becker
Consulting Software Developer
E-mail: address@hidden
Phone: (650) 506-8127

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]