Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755511Ab0FXODS (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:03:18 -0400 Received: from fxip-0047f.externet.hu ([88.209.222.127]:50792 "EHLO pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755235Ab0FXODQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:03:16 -0400 To: Nick Piggin CC: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, drepper@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org In-reply-to: <20100624131455.GA10441@laptop> (message from Nick Piggin on Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:14:55 +1000) Subject: Re: [rfc] new stat*fs-like syscall? References: <20100624131455.GA10441@laptop> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:03:05 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1737 Lines: 45 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > This has come up a few times in the past, and I'd like to try to get > an agreement on it. statvfs(2) importantly contains f_flag (mount > flags), and is encouraged to use rather than statfs(2). The kernel > provides a statfs syscall only. > > This means glibc has to provide f_flag support by parsing /proc/mounts > and stat(2)ing mount points. This is really slow, and /proc/mounts is > hard for the kernel to provide. It's actually the last scalability > bottleneck in the core vfs for dbench (samba) after my patches. > > Not only that, but it's racy. > > Other than types, other differences are: > - statvfs(2) has is f_frsize, which seems fairly useless. statfs(2) also has f_frsize since 2.6.0, only it hasn't been documented (should be fixed now). > - statvfs(2) has f_favail. > - statfs(2) f_bsize is optimal transfer block, statvfs(2) f_bsize is fs > block size. The latter could be useful for disk space algorithms. > Both can be ill defned. They are the same, only the documentation is different. > - statvfs(2) lacks f_type. > > Is there anything more we should add here? Samba wants a capabilities > field, with things like sparse files, quotas, compression, encryption, > case preserving/sensitive. > > Any thoughts? "struct statfs" and "struct statfs64" have spare fields. We could put the f_flag in there including a magic "this is a valid f_flag" flag, that distinguishes from the default zero value. Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/