[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160304112603.GA9790@node.shutemov.name>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:26:03 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...aro.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: THP-enabled filesystem vs. FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 07:51:50PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Truncate and punch hole that only cover part of THP range is implemented
> by zero out this part of THP.
>
> This have visible effect on fallocate(FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) behaviour.
> As we don't really create hole in this case, lseek(SEEK_HOLE) may have
> inconsistent results depending what pages happened to be allocated.
> Not sure if it should be considered ABI break or not.
Looks like this shouldn't be a problem. man 2 fallocate:
Within the specified range, partial filesystem blocks are zeroed,
and whole filesystem blocks are removed from the file. After a
successful call, subsequent reads from this range will return
zeroes.
It means we effectively have 2M filesystem block size.
And I don't see any guarantee about subsequent lseek(SEEK_HOLE) beheviour.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists