| To: | Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx>, adilger.kernel@xxxxxxxxx, bpm@xxxxxxx, elder@xxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, a.sangwan@xxxxxxxxxxx, Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs: Introduce new flag FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:23:41 +1000 |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20130731220154.GA11378@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1375281721-15840-1-git-send-email-linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> <20130731220154.GA11378@xxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:01:54PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Have you considered what happens if you have a 10 megabyte file, of > which the first 5 megs are mmap'ed into a userspace process. > > Now suppose you call COLLAPASE_RANGE on a one megabyte range starting > at offset 1024k from the beginning of the file. > > Does the right thing happen to the mmap'ed region in memory? Implementation detail. like a hole punch, it needs to invalidate the range that it is operating over so mmap()d regions are refaulted after the operation is done. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs: Introduce new flag FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs: Introduce new flag FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE, Theodore Ts'o |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs: Introduce new flag FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE, Theodore Ts'o |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs: Introduce new flag FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE, Theodore Ts'o |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |