Re: [RFC PATCH] block: wire blkdev_fallocate() to block_device_operations' reserve_space

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

 



On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:04:27PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12 2016 at  4:39pm -0400,
> Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 04:04:59PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c
> > > index 5a2c3ab..b34c07b 100644
> > > --- a/fs/block_dev.c
> > > +++ b/fs/block_dev.c
> > > @@ -1801,17 +1801,13 @@ long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, loff_t len)
> > >  	struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bdev);
> > >  	struct address_space *mapping;
> > >  	loff_t end = start + len - 1;
> > > -	loff_t bs_mask, isize;
> > > +	loff_t isize;
> > >  	int error;
> > >  
> > >  	/* We only support zero range and punch hole. */
> > >  	if (mode & ~BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED)
> > >  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > >  
> > > -	/* We haven't a primitive for "ensure space exists" right now. */
> > > -	if (!(mode & ~FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE))
> > > -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > -
> > >  	/* Only punch if the device can do zeroing discard. */
> > >  	if ((mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) &&
> > >  	    (!blk_queue_discard(q) || !q->limits.discard_zeroes_data))
> > > @@ -1829,9 +1825,12 @@ long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, loff_t len)
> > >  			return -EINVAL;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	/* Don't allow IO that isn't aligned to logical block size */
> > > -	bs_mask = bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1;
> > > -	if ((start | len) & bs_mask)
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Don't allow IO that isn't aligned to minimum IO size (io_min)
> > > +	 * - for normal device's io_min is usually logical block size
> > > +	 * - but for more exotic devices (e.g. DM thinp) it may be larger
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if ((start | len) % bdev_io_min(bdev))

I started by noticing the 64-bit division.  However, in researching alignment
requirements for fallocate, I noticed that nothing says that we can return
-EINVAL for unaligned offset/len for allocate or punch.  For file allocations
ext4 and xfs simply enlarge the range so that the ends are aligned to the
logical block size; for punch they both shrink the range to deallocate until
the ends are aligned, and write zeroes to the partial blocks.

At least for user-visible fallocate we should do likewise, but for the internal
blkdev_ helpers I think it makes more sense to check lbs alignment and let the
lower level driver reject the IO if min_io alignment is a hard requirement.
Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt says that the min_io is the smallest
/preferred/ size.

But, before that, I'll push out some new fallocate patches for -rc3.

> > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > Noted.  Will update the original patch.
> 
> BTW, I just noticed your "block: require write_same and discard requests
> align to logical block size" -- doesn't look right.

What happens if we pass a request to thinp that isn't aligned to
minimum_io_size?  Does it reject the command?

> But maybe I'm just too hyper-focused on DM thinp's needs (which would
> much prefer these checks be done in terms of minimum_io_size, rather
> than logical_block_size, and _not_ assuming power-of-2 math will work).
> 
> But at least for discard: your lbs-based check is fine; since we have
> discard_granularity to cover thinp's more specific requirements.

--D

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs



[Index of Archives]     [Linux XFS Devel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux