Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+4\/5\]\s+ext4\:\s+fallocate\s+support\s+in\s+ext4\s*$/: 71 ]

Total 71 documents matching your query.

61. Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4 (score: 1)
Author: Mingming Cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:00:24 -0700
I agree. There is already a loop in Amit's current's patch to call ext4_ext_get_blocks() thoug. Question is how much credit should ext4 to ask for in each journal_start()? .... I think the calculatio
/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00763.html (18,580 bytes)

62. Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4 (score: 1)
Author: Mingming Cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:30:29 -0700
In this case, since the number of blocks to preallocate (eg. N=10GB) is clear, we could improve the current reservation code, to allow callers explicitly ask for a new window that have the minimum N
/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00764.html (16,814 bytes)

63. Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4 (score: 1)
Author: Mingming Cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:41:39 -0700
I agree your point, that's why I mention it only helped the fragmentation issue but not the ENOSPC case. Not totally useless I think. If only half of the space is preallocated because run out of spac
/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00765.html (14,424 bytes)

64. Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4 (score: 1)
Author: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 18:07:36 -0700
In ext4 (as in XFS) there is a flag stored in the extent that tells if the extent is initialized or not. Reads from uninitialized extents will return zero-filled data, and writes that don't span the
/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00767.html (13,658 bytes)

65. Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4 (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 21:25:54 -0400
Agreed, thanks for the clarification. Jeff
/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00768.html (12,071 bytes)

66. Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4 (score: 1)
Author: Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:43:37 -0400
Checking against the fs free blocks is a good idea, since it will prevent the obvious error case where someone tries to preallocate 10GB when there is only 2GB left. But it won't help if there are mu
/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00769.html (13,441 bytes)

67. Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4 (score: 1)
Author: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:22:47 +0530
You are right. But, we still need to "standardize" (and limit) the error codes which we should return from kernel when we want to fall back on the library implementation. The posix_fallocate() librar
/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00777.html (14,344 bytes)

68. Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4 (score: 1)
Author: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 09:47:54 -0500
If you want my opinion, -EOPNOTSUPP is better than -ENOTTY. Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center
/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00780.html (13,966 bytes)

69. Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4 (score: 1)
Author: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 09:52:59 -0700
I tend to agree with this. Having fallocate() fill up the filesystem is exactly what the caller asked. Doing a write() hit ENOSPC doesn't trucate off the whole write either, nor does "dd" delete the
/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00781.html (12,844 bytes)

70. Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4 (score: 1)
Author: Mingming Cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 10:46:01 -0700
Think it again, this check is useful when preallocate blocks at EOF. It's not much useful is preallocating a range with holes. In that case 2GB space might be enough if the application tries to preal
/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00782.html (13,637 bytes)

71. Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4 (score: 1)
Author: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 15:34:46 +0200
It seems to handle quotas fine - the block allocation itself does not differ from the usual case, just the extents in the tree are marked as uninitialized... The only question is whether DQUOT_PREAL
/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00848.html (11,504 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu