xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] add FIEMAP ioctl to efficiently map file allocation

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] add FIEMAP ioctl to efficiently map file allocation
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 00:49:09 -0700
Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@xxxxxxxxx>, Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070502105749.GY77450368@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@xxxxxxxxx>, Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20070419002139.GK5967@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070419015426.GM48531920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070430224401.GX5967@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070501042254.GD77450368@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1177994346.3362.5.camel@entropy> <20070501142049.GG77450368@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <084192A9-D739-44F2-AD21-30BC30486F07@xxxxxxxxx> <20070502091526.GW77450368@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <2604946E-CF10-426F-9720-DDABD10C8E0D@xxxxxxxxx> <20070502105749.GY77450368@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On May 02, 2007  20:57 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 10:36:12AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > HSM_READ is definitely _NOT_ required because all  
> > it means is "if the file is OFFLINE, bring it ONLINE and then return  
> > the extent map".
> 
> You've got the definition of HSM_READ wrong. If the flag is *not*
> set, then we bring everything back online and return the full extent
> map.
> 
> Specifying the flag indicates that we do *not* want the offline
> extents brought back online.  i.e. it is a HSM or a datamover
> (e.g. backup program) that is querying the extents and we want to
> known *exactly* what the current state of the file is right now.
> 
> So, if the HSM_READ flag is set, then the application is
> expecting the filesytem to be part of a HSM. Hence if it's not,
> it should return an error because somebody has done something wrong.

In my original proposal I specifically pointed out that the
FIEMAP_FLAG_HSM_READ has the OPPOSITE behaviour as the XFS_IOC_GETBMAPX
BMV_IF_NO_DMAPI_READ flag.  Data is retrieved from HSM only if the
HSM_READ flag is set.  That's why the flag is called "HSM_READ" instead
of "HSM_NO_READ".

The reason is that it seems bad if the default behaviour for calling
ioctl(FIEMAP) would be to force retrieval of data from HSM, and this is
only disabled by specifying a flag.  It makes a lot more sense to just
leave the data as it is and return the extent mapping by default (i.e.
this is the principle of least surprise).  It would probably be equally
surprising and undesirable if the default behaviour was to force all
data out to HSM.



For that matter, I'm also beginning to wonder if the FLAG_HSM_READ should
even be a part of this interface?  I have no problem with returning a
flag that reports if the data is migrated to HSM and whether it is UNMAPPED.

Having FIEMAP force the retrieval of data from HSM strikes me as something
that should be a part of a separate HSM interface, which also needs to be
able to do things like push specific files or parts thereof out to HSM,
set the aging policy, and return information like "where does the HSM
file live" and "how many copies are there".

Do you know the reasoning behind including this into XFS_IOC_GETBMAPX?
Looking at the bmap.c comments it appears it is simply because the API
isn't able to return something like UNMAPPED|HSM_RESIDENT to indicate
there is data in HSM but it has no blocks allocated in the filesystem.

I don't think it makes the operation significantly more efficient than
say "ioctl(DMAPI_FORCE_READ); ioctl(FIEMAP)" if an application actually
needs the data to be present instead of just returning mapping info that
includes "UNMAPPED.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.


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