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=-9.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham 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 EDF97C43381 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:40:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8527220811 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:40:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=synology.com header.i=@synology.com header.b="BfT8hxPo" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725939AbfC1Jkz (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2019 05:40:55 -0400 Received: from mail.synology.com ([211.23.38.101]:49897 "EHLO synology.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725815AbfC1Jkz (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2019 05:40:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [10.17.32.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by synology.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D07D188206A3; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:40:52 +0800 (CST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=synology.com; s=123; t=1553766052; bh=cSrxZ+qOWjJKfddkJCl2d9+V0AlMe9v0oa4LvwmF+kY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date; b=BfT8hxPonTVY3lNNJ+EGLsL1XHQ/wUbM3vM3cExEjxTU+1cu7E6fh1uOhf3mK9LwV 6PD1goHZnbDyTymdFBjupsiX6kkm0BCdmb4tQKFc38Bv4EC4RxYxctGAgTkJL/U8vl cft3UiuPtGl3Fr0n/Ve9Pa2qSHCOaHkkYgEYR/v0= From: robbieko To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: Robbie Ko Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs: send, improve clone range Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:40:36 +0800 Message-Id: <1553766036-20689-1-git-send-email-robbieko@synology.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.9.1 X-Synology-MCP-Status: no X-Synology-Spam-Flag: no X-Synology-Spam-Status: score=0, required 6, WHITELIST_FROM_ADDRESS 0 X-Synology-Virus-Status: no Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Robbie Ko Improve clone_range two use scenarios. 1. Remove the limit of clone inode size We can do partial clone range, so there is no need to limit the inode size. 2. In the scenarios of rewrite or clone_range, data_offset rarely matches exactly, so the chance of a clone is missed. e.g. 1. Write a 1M file dd if=/dev/zero of=1M bs=1M count=1 2. Clone 1M file cp --reflink 1M clone 3. Rewrite 4k on the clone file dd if=/dev/zero of=clone bs=4k count=1 conv=notrunc The disk layout is as follows: item 16 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 15353 itemsize 53 extent data disk byte 1103101952 nr 1048576 extent data offset 0 nr 1048576 ram 1048576 extent compression(none) ... item 22 key (258 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 14959 itemsize 53 extent data disk byte 1104150528 nr 4096 extent data offset 0 nr 4096 ram 4096 extent compression(none) item 23 key (258 EXTENT_DATA 4096) itemoff 14906 itemsize 53 extent data disk byte 1103101952 nr 1048576 extent data offset 4096 nr 1044480 ram 1048576 extent compression(none) When send, inode 258 file offset 4096~1048576 (item 23) has a chance to clone_range, but because data_offset does not match inode 257 (item 16), it causes missed clone and can only transfer actual data. Improve the problem by judging whether the current data_offset has overlap with the file extent item, and if so, adjusting offset and extent_len so that we can clone correctly. Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko --- fs/btrfs/send.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c index 7ea2d6b..7766b12 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c @@ -1240,9 +1240,6 @@ static int __iterate_backrefs(u64 ino, u64 offset, u64 root, void *ctx_) if (ret < 0) return ret; - if (offset + bctx->data_offset + bctx->extent_len > i_size) - return 0; - /* * Make sure we don't consider clones from send_root that are * behind the current inode/offset. @@ -5148,6 +5145,7 @@ static int clone_range(struct send_ctx *sctx, u8 type; u64 ext_len; u64 clone_len; + u64 clone_data_offset; if (slot >= btrfs_header_nritems(leaf)) { ret = btrfs_next_leaf(clone_root->root, path); @@ -5201,10 +5199,24 @@ static int clone_range(struct send_ctx *sctx, if (key.offset >= clone_root->offset + len) break; + if (btrfs_file_extent_disk_bytenr(leaf, ei) == disk_byte) { + clone_root->offset = key.offset; + clone_data_offset = btrfs_file_extent_offset(leaf, ei); + if (clone_data_offset < data_offset && + clone_data_offset + ext_len > data_offset) { + u64 extent_offset; + + extent_offset = data_offset - clone_data_offset; + ext_len -= extent_offset; + clone_data_offset += extent_offset; + clone_root->offset += extent_offset; + } + } + clone_len = min_t(u64, ext_len, len); if (btrfs_file_extent_disk_bytenr(leaf, ei) == disk_byte && - btrfs_file_extent_offset(leaf, ei) == data_offset) + clone_data_offset == data_offset) ret = send_clone(sctx, offset, clone_len, clone_root); else ret = send_extent_data(sctx, offset, clone_len); -- 1.9.1