Hole punching has already been implemented by XFS and OCFS2, and has the
potential to be implemented on both BTRFS and EXT4 so we need a generic way to
get to this feature. The simplest way in my mind is to add FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE
to fallocate() since it already looks like the normal fallocate()
Hole punching has already been implemented by XFS and OCFS2, and has the
potential to be implemented on both BTRFS and EXT4 so we need a generic way to
get to this feature. The simplest way in my mind is to add FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE
to fallocate() since it already looks like the normal fallocate()
Hole punching has already been implemented by XFS and OCFS2, and has the
potential to be implemented on both BTRFS and EXT4 so we need a generic way to
get to this feature. The simplest way in my mind is to add FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE
to fallocate() since it already looks like the normal fallocate()
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:32:02PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Hole punching has already been implemented by XFS and OCFS2, and has the
> potential to be implemented on both BTRFS and EXT4 so we need a generic way to
> get to this feature. The simplest way in my mind is to add
> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_H
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:12:22PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:32:02PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > Hole punching has already been implemented by XFS and OCFS2, and has the
> > potential to be implemented on both BTRFS and EXT4 so we need a generic way
> > to
> > get t
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:12:22PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Hole punching was not included originally in fallocate() for a
> variety of reasons. IIRC, they were along the lines of:
>
> 1 de-allocating of blocks in an allocation syscall is wrong.
> People wanted a new syscall for
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:30:38PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:12:22PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Hole punching was not included originally in fallocate() for a
> > variety of reasons. IIRC, they were along the lines of:
> >
> > 1 de-allocating of blocks in an alloc
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:12:22PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:32:02PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > Hole punching has already been implemented by XFS and OCFS2, and has the
> > potential to be implemented on both BTRFS and EXT4 so we need a generic way
> > to
> > get t
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:42:42PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Implementation is up to the filesystem. However, XFS does (b)
> because:
>
> 1) it was extremely simple to implement (one of the
> advantages of having an exceedingly complex allocation
> interface to begin wit
On Tue 09-11-10 16:41:47, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:42:42PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Implementation is up to the filesystem. However, XFS does (b)
> > because:
> >
> > 1) it was extremely simple to implement (one of the
> >advantages of having an exceedingly co
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:41:47PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:42:42PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Implementation is up to the filesystem. However, XFS does (b)
> > because:
> >
> > 1) it was extremely simple to implement (one of the
> >advantages of having a
On Mon 15-11-10 12:05:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
> index 4197b9e..ab8dedf 100644
> --- a/fs/open.c
> +++ b/fs/open.c
> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ int do_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t
> offset, loff_t len)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /* Retu
On Tue 16-11-10 12:16:11, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 15-11-10 12:05:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
> > index 4197b9e..ab8dedf 100644
> > --- a/fs/open.c
> > +++ b/fs/open.c
> > @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ int do_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t
> > offset, loff_t
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:43:46PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 16-11-10 12:16:11, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 15-11-10 12:05:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
> > > index 4197b9e..ab8dedf 100644
> > > --- a/fs/open.c
> > > +++ b/fs/open.c
> > > @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ i
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:16:11PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 15-11-10 12:05:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
> > index 4197b9e..ab8dedf 100644
> > --- a/fs/open.c
> > +++ b/fs/open.c
> > @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ int do_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t
> >
On Tue 16-11-10 07:52:50, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:43:46PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 16-11-10 12:16:11, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 15-11-10 12:05:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
> > > > index 4197b9e..ab8dedf 100644
> > > > --- a/fs
On 2010-11-16, at 07:14, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Yeah I went back and forth on this. KEEP_SIZE won't change the behavior of
>> PUNCH_HOLE since PUNCH_HOLE implicitly means keep the size. I figured since
>> its "mode" and not "flags" it would be ok to make either way accepted, but
>> if you prefer P
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:22:47PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2010-11-16, at 07:14, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> Yeah I went back and forth on this. KEEP_SIZE won't change the
> >> behavior of PUNCH_HOLE since PUNCH_HOLE implicitly means keep
> >> the size. I figured since its "mode" and not "flag
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:11:50PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:22:47PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > On 2010-11-16, at 07:14, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >> Yeah I went back and forth on this. KEEP_SIZE won't change the
> > >> behavior of PUNCH_HOLE since PUNCH_HOLE implicit
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:28:14PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:11:50PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:22:47PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On 2010-11-16, at 07:14, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > >> Yeah I went back and forth on this. KEEP_SIZE won
On 2010-11-16, at 20:11, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:22:47PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> IMHO, it makes more sense for consistency and "get what users
>> expect" that these be treated as flags. Some users will want
>> KEEP_SIZE, but in other cases it may make sense that a
On 2010-11-16, at 20:34, Josef Bacik wrote:
> FWIW I agree with Dave, the only question at this point is do we force users
> to specify KEEP_SIZE with PUNCH_HOLE? On one hand it makes the interface a
> bit more consistent, on the other hand it makes the documentation a little
> weird
>
> "We h
On Wed 17-11-10 20:46:15, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Hole punching has already been implemented by XFS and OCFS2, and has the
> potential to be implemented on both BTRFS and EXT4 so we need a generic way to
> get to this feature. The simplest way in my mind is to add
> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE
> to falloca
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:41:47PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:42:42PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> > Implementation is up to the filesystem. However, XFS does (b)
>> > because:
>> >
>> > 1) it was extremely simple
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:13:42PM -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
> > IOWs, all they want to do is avoid the unwritten extent conversion
> > overhead. Time has shown that a bad security/performance tradeoff
> > decision was made 13 years ago in XFS, so I see little reason to
> > repeat it for ex
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:30:07PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:13:42PM -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
> > > IOWs, all they want to do is avoid the unwritten extent conversion
> > > overhead. Time has shown that a bad security/performance tradeoff
> > > decision was made 1
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:13:42PM -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > The historical reason for such behaviour existing in XFS was that in
> > 1997 the CPU and IO latency cost of unwritten extent conversion was
> > significant,
.
> >>
On 01/12/2011 07:44 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:13:42PM -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
The historical reason for such behaviour existing in XFS was that in
1997 the CPU and IO latency cost of unwritten extent convers
28 matches
Mail list logo
