[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140225154128.947a2de83a2d0dc21763ccf9@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:41:28 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, bpm@....com, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
jack@...e.cz, mtk.manpages@...il.com, lczerner@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/10] fs: Introduce new
flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for fallocate
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:23:35 -0800 (PST) Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:16:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:57:10 +1100 Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Namjae Jeon (10):
> > > > > fs: Add new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for fallocate
> > > > > xfs: Add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for fallocate
> > > >
> > > > I've pushed these to the following branch:
> > > >
> > > > git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs.git xfs-collapse-range
> > > >
> > > > And so they'll be in tomorrow's linux-next tree.
> > > >
> > > > > ext4: Add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for fallocate
> > > >
> > > > I've left this one alone for the ext4 guys to sort out.
> > >
> > > So presumably that xfs tree branch is now completely stable and so Ted
> > > could just merge that branch into the ext4 tree as well and put the ext4
> > > part on top of that in his tree.
> >
> > Well, for some definition of stable. Right now it's just a topic
> > branch that is merged into the for-next branch, so in theory it is
> > still just a set of pending changes in a branch in a repo that has
> > been pushed to linux-next for testing.
> >
> > That said, I don't see that branch changing unless we find bugs in
> > the code or a problem with the API needs fixing, at which point I
> > would add more commits to it and rebase the for-next branch that you
> > are pulling into the linux-next tree.
> >
> > Realistically, I'm waiting for Lukas to repost his other pending
> > fallocate changes (the zero range changes) so I can pull the VFS and
> > XFS bits of that into the XFS tree and I can test them together
> > before I'll call the xfs-collapse-range stable and ready to be
> > merged into some other tree...
>
> ...
>
> Emphasis on "might": I expect it's impossible, given your current
> approach, but something to be on guard against is unmap_mapping_range()
> failing to find and unmap a pte, because the page is mapped at the
> "wrong" place in the vma, resulting in BUG_ON(page_mapped(page))
> in __delete_from_page_cache().
It should be well tested with non-linear mappings please. It *should*
be OK, but...
>
> ...
>
> FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE: I'm a little sad at the name COLLAPSE,
> but probably seven months too late to object. It surprises me that
> you're doing all this work to deflate a part of the file, without
> the obvious complementary work to inflate it - presumably all those
> advertisers whose ads you're cutting out, will come back to us soon
> to ask for inflation, so that they have somewhere to reinsert them ;)
Yes, I was wondering that. Why not simply "move these blocks from here
to there".
--
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