[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251110093140.GA22674@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 10:31:40 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Hans Holmberg <hans.holmberg@....com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] xfs: fake fallocate success for always CoW inodes
On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 01:30:18PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> main(void)
> {
> FILE *fp = tmpfile();
> if (fp == NULL)
> abort();
> int fd = fileno(fp);
> posix_fallocate(fd, 0, 1);
> char *p = mmap(NULL, 1, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> *p = 1;
> }
>
> should not crash even if the file system does not support fallocate.
> I hope we can agree on that. I expect avoiding SIGBUS errors because
> of insufficient file size is a common use case for posix_fallocate.
> This use is not really an optimization, it's required to get mmap
> working properly.
That's a weird use of posix_fallocate, but if an interface to increase
the file without the chance of reducing it is useful that's for
sure something we could add.
> If we can get an fallocate mode that we can use as a fallback to
> increase the file size with a zero flag argument, we can definitely
> use that in posix_fallocate (replacing the fallback path on kernels
> that support it). All local file systems should be able to implement
> that (but perhaps not efficiently). Basically, what we need here is a
> non-destructive ftruncate.
fallocate seems like an odd interface choice for that, but given that
(f)truncate doesn't have a flags argument that might still be the
least unexpected version.
> Maybe add two flags, one for the ftruncate replacement, and one that
> instructs the file system that the range will be used with mmap soon?
> I expect this could be useful information to the file system. We
> wouldn't use it in posix_fallocate, but applications calling fallocate
> directly might.
What do you think "to be used with mmap" flag could be useful for
in the file system? For file systems mmap I/O isn't very different
from other use cases.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists