[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DD42CA1.8050700@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:31:29 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@...gle.com>
CC: tytso@....edu, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: use vmtruncate() instead of ext4_truncate() in
ext4_setattr()
On 5/18/11 3:28 PM, Jiaying Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com <mailto:sandeen@...hat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 5/17/11 5:59 PM, Jiaying Zhang wrote:
> > There is a bug in commit c8d46e41 "ext4: Add flag to files with blocks
> > intentionally past EOF" that if we fallocate a file with FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE
> > flag and then ftruncate the file to a size larger than the file's i_size,
> > any allocated but unwritten blocks will be freed but the file size is set
> > to the size that ftruncate specifies.
> >
> > Here is a simple test to reproduce the problem:
> > 1. fallocate a 12k size file with KEEP_SIZE flag
> > 2. write the first 4k
> > 3. ftruncate the file to 8k
> > Then 'ls -l' shows that the i_size of the file becomes 8k but debugfs
> > shows the file has only the first written block left.
>
> To be honest I'm not 100% certain what the fiesystem -should- do in this case.
>
> If I go through that same sequence on xfs, I get 4k written / 8k unwritten:
>
> # xfs_bmap -vp testfile
> testfile:
> EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS
> 0: [0..7]: 2648750760..2648750767 3 (356066400..356066407) 8 00000
> 1: [8..23]: 2648750768..2648750783 3 (356066408..356066423) 16 10000
>
> size 8k:
> # ls -l testfile
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8192 May 17 22:33 testfile
>
> and diskspace used 12k:
> # du -hc testfile
> 12K testfile
> 12K total
>
> I think this is a different result from ext4, either with or without your patch.
>
> On ext4 I get size 8k, but only the first 4k mapped, as you say.
>
> I agree that truncating to a size larger than i_size is un-specified by
> POSIX. However, I think the problem with the current behavior is that
> we have an inconsistency between file's i_size and its extent tree.
> Now we have 8k i_size but the file has only 4k space allocated. That
> can confuse applications.
That's called "a sparse file" right? Apps should not be confused by that ...
-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