On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:07:39 -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> I've been poking around at testing zeroing behavior after a couple
> recent enhancements to iomap_zero_range() and fsx[1]. Running [1] on
> ext4 has uncovered a couple issues that I think share responsibility
> between the fs and pagecache.
>
> The details are in the commit logs, but patch 1 updates ext4 to do
> partial eof block zeroing in more cases and patch 2 tweaks
> pagecache_isize_extended() to do eof folio zeroing similar to as is done
> during writeback (i.e., ext4_bio_write_folio(),
> iomap_writepage_handle_eof(), etc.). These kind of overlap, but the fs
> changes handle the case of a block straddling eof (so we're writing to
> disk in that case) and the pagecache changes handle the case of a folio
> straddling eof that might be at least partially hole backed (i.e.
> sub-page block sizes, so we're just clearing pagecache).
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[1/2] ext4: partial zero eof block on unaligned inode size extension
commit: 462a214e71f3fbc40d28f0a00fe6f0d4c4041c98
[2/2] mm: zero range of eof folio exposed by inode size extension
commit: faf7bba6b84981443773952289571e5ebeda1767
Best regards,
--
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
