2014-02-03 0:21 GMT+09:00, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 08:16:24AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> 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.
Yes, right. So both xfs and ext4 call truncate_pagecache_range to drop
page caches before removing blocks.
truncate_pagecache_range(inode, offset, -1);
and end offset is -1, which mean all page cache will be dropped from
start offset to the end of file.
> Oops, forgot to add "and if it is a multiple of page size, then we need
> to update the offsets of any pages after the removed page". We should
> probably start easy though; just drop all pages that overlap the beginning
> of the affected range to the end of the file.
Yes, right. current implementation does exactly as you pointed
> At some later point,
> if there's demand, we can add the optimisation to adjust the offsets of
> pages still in the cache.
-> Yes, Right. But if we consider that fs block size can be less than
page cache size,(512B, 1K, 2K)
I thought that it is proper to drop all pages from the start offset to
the end of the file.
Thanks for your reply.
> Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology
> "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."