On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:09:48AM +0100, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:33:24 +1100 > > From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6][RFC] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for > > fallocate > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:01:38PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 04:08:17PM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > > > Introduce new FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for fallocate. This has the same > > > > functionality as xfs ioctl XFS_IOC_ZERO_RANGE. > > > > > > > > It can be used to convert a range of file to zeros preferably without > > > > issuing data IO. Blocks should be preallocated for the regions that span > > > > holes in the file, and the entire range is preferable converted to > > > > unwritten extents - even though file system may choose to zero out the > > > > extent or do whatever which will result in reading zeros from the range > > > > while the range remains allocated for the file. > > > > > > > > This can be also used to preallocate blocks past EOF in the same way as > > > > with fallocate. Flag FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE which should cause the inode > > > > size to remain the same. > > > > > > > > You can test this feature yourself using xfstests, of fallocate(1) however > > > > you'll need patches for util_linux, xfsprogs and xfstests which you > > > > can find here: > > > > > > > > http://people.redhat.com/lczerner/zero_range/ > > > > > > > > I'll post the patches after we agree and merge the kernel functionality. > > > > > > > > I tested this mostly with a subset of xfstests using fsx and fsstress and > > > > even with new generic/290 which is just a copy of xfs/290 usinz fzero > > > > command for xfs_io instead of zero (which uses ioctl). I was testing on > > > > x86_64 and ppc64 with block sizes of 1024, 2048 and 4096. > > > > > > You also want to convert xfs/242 to be a generic test - it uses the > > > _generic_test_punch helper to test all the corner cases across > > > different extent type transitions. > > That was the plan originally, however it uses xfs bmap which is not > supported for other file systems. But I can take a better look and > possibly port it to generic as well. Simply pass fiemap rather than "bmap -v" like all the other falloc tests do. The output of the xfs_io fiemap and bmap commands is pretty much identical so this shouldn't be an issue. > > > > ./check generic/076 generic/232 generic/013 generic/070 generic/269 generic/083 generic/117 generic/068 generic/231 generic/127 generic/091 generic/075 generic/112 generic/263 generic/091 generic/075 generic/256 generic/255 generic/316 generic/300 generic/290; > > > > FWIW. if that's a group of tests you consider good for testing > > extent tree modifications, then can you create a test group for > > these by adding "extent" to each of the tests in the group file? > > I've made patches adding support for FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE into fsx > and fsstress so those tests are mostly tests which are using fsx and > fsstress. Ok, so it's a "fallocate" test group, then? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
