[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate

To: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:12:22 +1100
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, joel.becker@xxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1289248327-16308-1-git-send-email-josef@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1289248327-16308-1-git-send-email-josef@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:32:02PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Hole punching has already been implemented by XFS and OCFS2, and has the
> potential to be implemented on both BTRFS and EXT4 so we need a generic way to
> get to this feature.  The simplest way in my mind is to add 
> to fallocate() since it already looks like the normal fallocate() operation.
> I've tested this patch with XFS and BTRFS to make sure XFS did what it's
> supposed to do and that BTRFS failed like it was supposed to.  Thank you,
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/open.c              |    2 +-
>  include/linux/falloc.h |    1 +
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
> index 4197b9e..ab8dedf 100644
> --- a/fs/open.c
> +++ b/fs/open.c
> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ int do_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t 
> offset, loff_t len)
>               return -EINVAL;
>       /* Return error if mode is not supported */
> -     if (mode && !(mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE))
> +     if (mode && (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)))
>               return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>       if (!(file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
> diff --git a/include/linux/falloc.h b/include/linux/falloc.h
> index 3c15510..851cba2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/falloc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/falloc.h
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>  #define _FALLOC_H_
>  #define FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE  0x01 /* default is extend size */
> +#define FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE 0X02 /* de-allocates range */

Hole punching was not included originally in fallocate() for a
variety of reasons. IIRC, they were along the lines of:

        1 de-allocating of blocks in an allocation syscall is wrong.
          People wanted a new syscall for this functionality.
        2 no glibc interface needs it
        3 at the time, only XFS supported punching holes, so there
          is not need to support it in a generic interface
        4 the use cases presented were not considered compelling
          enough to justify the additional complexity (!)

In the end, I gave up arguing for it to be included because just
getting the FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE functionality was a hard enough

Anyway, #3 isn't the case any more, #4 was just an excuse not to
support anything ext4 couldn't do and lots of apps are calling
fallocate directly (because glibc can't use FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE) so
#2 isn't an issue, either. I guess that leaves #1 to be debated;
I don't think there is any problem with doing what you propose.

What I will suggest is that this requires a generic xfstest to be
written and support added to xfs_io to enable that test (and others)
to issue hole punches. Something along the lines of test 242 which I
wrote for testing all the edge case of XFS_IOC_ZERO_RANGE (*) would be



(*) fallocate() version:
Dave Chinner

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