Re: THP-enabled filesystem vs. FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 03/04/2016 03:26 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> 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.

The question is still whether this will case problems for apps.

Isn't 2MB a quote unusual block size?  Wouldn't some files on a tmpfs
filesystem act like they have a 2M blocksize and others like they have
4k?  Would that confuse apps?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux