xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/10] fs: Introduce new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE)

To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/10] fs: Introduce new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for fallocate
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 08:16:24 -0700
Cc: viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, bpm@xxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, adilger.kernel@xxxxxxxxx, jack@xxxxxxx, mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1391319694-3089-1-git-send-email-linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <1391319694-3089-1-git-send-email-linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 02:41:34PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> The semantics of this flag are following:
> 1) It collapses the range lying between offset and length by removing any data
>    blocks which are present in this range and than updates all the logical
>    offsets of extents beyond "offset + len" to nullify the hole created by
>    removing blocks. In short, it does not leave a hole.
> 2) It should be used exclusively. No other fallocate flag in combination.
> 3) Offset and length supplied to fallocate should be fs block size aligned
>    in case of xfs and ext4.
> 4) Collaspe range does not work beyond i_size.

What if the file is mmaped at the time somebody issues this command?
Seems to me we should drop pagecache pages that overlap with the
removed blocks.  If the removed range is not a multiple of PAGE_SIZE,
then we should also drop any pagecache pages after the removed range.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox                          Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."

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