Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:28:01 -0700 From: mdf@FreeBSD.org To: Gleb Kurtsou <gleb.kurtsou@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: posix_fallocate(2) Message-ID: <BANLkTikHbVPbcQ=0zLyFG2Ur7rUs-0Xh2Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110415105409.GA14344@tops> References: <BANLkTimYzJ11w9X1OHShEn2wi6gjHx=YjA@mail.gmail.com> <20110414213610.GB92382@tops> <BANLkTi=OWUnB_ue3RT4bzGNvivZwW_ofkA@mail.gmail.com> <20110415105409.GA14344@tops>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Gleb Kurtsou <gleb.kurtsou@gmail.com> wrote: > On (14/04/2011 15:41), mdf@FreeBSD.org wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Gleb Kurtsou <gleb.kurtsou@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On (14/04/2011 12:35), mdf@FreeBSD.org wrote: >> >> For work we need a functionality in our filesystem that is pretty much >> >> like posix_fallocate(2), so we're using the name and I've added a >> >> default VOP_ALLOCATE definition that does the right, but dumb, thing. >> >> >> >> The most recent mention of this function in FreeBSD was another thread >> >> lamenting it's failure to exist: >> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2010-February/059268.html >> >> >> >> The attached files are the core of the kernel implementation of the >> >> syscall and a default VOP for any filesystem not supporting >> >> VOP_ALLOCATE, which allows the syscall to work as expected but in a >> >> non-performant manner. I didn't see this syscall in NetBSD or >> >> OpenBSD, so I plan to add it to the end of our syscall table. >> >> >> >> What I wanted to check with -arch about was: >> >> >> >> 1) is there still a desire for this syscall? >> > It looks not to play well architecturally with modern COW file systems >> > like ZFS and HUMMER. So potentially it can be implemented only for UFS. >> >> The syscall, or the dumb implementation? I don't see why the syscall >> itself would be a problem; presumably ZFS can figure out whether an >> fallocate() block is worth COWing or not... > It is good to have if there is a chance to get a real implementation for > UFS. Having only dumb implementation will fool user software that we > support it. > > As far as I understand ZFS caches large chunk of changes and than writes > all of them at once. I doubt blocks can be preallocated. You preallocate > block, it's marked as used in file systems meta data, changes to meta > data are written to disk -- it results in inconsistency because > preallocated block is marked as "used" in meta data and thus can't > be overwritten. I might be absolutely wrong, ZFS experts are > better answer this. Grepping reveals no fallocate support in ZFS. > >> >> 2) is this naive implementation useful enough to serve as a default >> >> for all filesystems until someone with more knowledge fills them in? >> > Maillist ate the patch. Only man page attached. >> >> Whoops! >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/bsd-fallocate.diff > What was performance impact on copying large files? I don't know and I don't care. :-) Specifically, one problem is that there is no file-system implementation of "copy"; copy is implemented in userspace with read(2) then write(2). If the caller says posix_fallocate() then they want blocks. If copying a large file is slower after that, well, they asked for it. This implementation meets the spec only, it's not meant to be optimal. An optimal VOP_WRITE() implementation may check that e.g. the next block on write is all zero, and so will make a new logical-zero block in the same manner as VOP_FALLOCATE. This is up to each filesystem. > I had sparse file support in PEFS implemented similar way. posix_fallocate() is specifically to *not* have a sparse file. > Performance was terrible, vm > and buf caches where saturated first by writing huge chunks of zeros and > than by mmap'ing and writing actual data. sched_yeld() and/or vnode > lock/unlock didn't improve interactive performance either. > > Why wouldn't you just call VOP_SETATTR(newsize) in dumb implementation. > File systems expect files such behavior, cp is using mmap for a while > already. VOP_SETATTR(newsize) could truncate, if e.g. the file is already large and sparse and the fallocate(2) was to provide guaranteed storage only to the first 1MB. Thanks, matthewhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTikHbVPbcQ=0zLyFG2Ur7rUs-0Xh2Q>