Re: [RFC] extending splice for copy offloading

[Ric Wheeler]

On 09/30/2013 10:51 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > My other worry is about interruptibility/restartability.  Ideas?
> > >
> > > What happens on splice(from, to, 4G) and it's a non-reflink copy?
> > > Can the page cache copy be made restartable?   Or should splice() be
> > > allowed to return a short count?  What happens on (non-reflink) remote
> > > copies and huge request sizes?
> > If I were writing an application that required copies to be restartable,
> > I'd probably use the largest possible range in the reflink case but
> > break the copy into smaller chunks in the splice case.
> The app really doesn't want to care about that.  And it doesn't want
> to care about restartability, etc..  It's something the *kernel* has
> to care about.   You just can't have uninterruptible syscalls that
> sleep for a "long" time, otherwise first you'll just have annoyed
> users pressing ^C in vain; then, if the sleep is even longer, warnings
> about task sleeping too long.
>
> One idea is letting splice() return a short count, and so the app can
> safely issue SIZE_MAX requests and the kernel can decide if it can
> copy the whole file in one go or if it wants to do it in smaller
> chunks.
>
> Thanks,
> Miklos

You cannot rely on a short count. That implies that an offloaded copy starts at 
byte 0 and the short count first bytes are all valid.

I don't believe that is in fact required by all (any?) versions of the spec :)

Best just to fail and restart the whole operation.

Ric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/