[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45EC8E6C.6040403@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:41:00 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, nscott@...nex.com,
"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, suparna@...ibm.com, alex@...sterfs.com,
suzuki@...ibm.com, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()
Jan Kara wrote:
>> I am wondering if it is useful to add another mode to advise block
>> allocation policy? Something like indicating which physical block/block
>> group to allocate from (goal), and whether ask for strict contigous
>> blocks. This will help preallocation or reservation to choose the right
>> blocks for the file.
> Yes, I also think this would be useful so you can "guide"
> preallocation for things like defragmentation (e.g. preallocate space
> for the file being defragmented and move the file to it).
Hints & policies for allocation would certainly be useful, but I think
they belong outside this interface. i.e. you could flag an inode for
whatever allocation you choose, and -then- call posix_fallocate so that
the allocator will take the hints you've given it.
See also this blurb from the posix_fallocate definition:
"It is implementation-defined whether a previous posix_fadvise() call
influences allocation strategy."
FWIW I don't see a lot of point in asking for "strict contiguous blocks"
- the allocator will presumeably try to do this in any case, and I'm not
sure when you would want to fail if you get more than one extent...?
-Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists