On 08/01/17 20:15, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > On 08/01/17 19:34, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > [..] >> Apparently, if you call fallocate() on a file with an offset of 0 and >> a length longer than the length of the file itself, BTRFS will >> allocate that exact amount of space, instead of just filling in holes >> in the file and allocating space to extend it. If there isn't enough >> space on the filesystem for this, then it will fail, even though it >> would succeed on ext4, XFS, and F2FS. > [..] >> I'm curious to hear anybody's thoughts on this, namely: 1. Is this >> behavior that should be considered implementation defined? 2. If not, >> is my assessment that BTRFS is behaving incorrectly in this case >> accurate? > > IMHO no and yes, respectively. Both fallocate(2) and posix_fallocate(3) > make it very clear that the expected default behaviour is to extend. > I don't think this can be interpreted in any other way than incorrect > behaviour on behalf of btrfs. > > Your script reproduces for me, so that's a start. Your reproducer should never ENOSPC because it requires exactly 0 new bytes to be allocated, yet it also fails with --keep-size. >From a quick look it seems that btrfs_fallocate() unconditionally calls btrfs_alloc_data_chunk_ondemand(inode, alloc_end - alloc_start) to lazily allocate the necessary extent(s), which goes ENOSPC because that size is again the full size of the requested range, not the difference between the existing file size and the new range length. But I might be misreading things.. -h
