On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:35:26PM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:59:38PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
> > The points of the implementation are followings.
> > - Add calls of the freeze function (freeze_bdev) and
> > the unfreeze function (tha
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:59:38PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
> The points of the implementation are followings.
> - Add calls of the freeze function (freeze_bdev) and
> the unfreeze function (thaw_bdev) in ext3_ioctl().
>
> - ext3_freeze_timeout() which calls the unfreeze function (thaw_bdev)
>
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:42:30PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
> >I am also wondering whether we should have system call(s) for these:
> >
> >On Jan 25, 2008 12:59 PM, Takashi Sato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>+ case EXT3_IOC_FREEZE: {
> >
> >>+ case EXT3_IOC_THAW: {
> >
> >And just co
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 12:05:11AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2008 14:38 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 04:00:41PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > I discussed this with Ted at one point also. This is a generic problem,
> >
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 04:00:41PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008 13:30 -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
> > I have a partial solution that sort of blindly manages the buffer
> > cache. First, the user passes e2fsck a parameter saying how much
> > memory is available as buffer cache.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:43PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
> Hi y'all,
>
> This is a request for comments on the rewrite of the e2fsck IO
> parallelization patches I sent out a few months ago. The mechanism is
> totally different. Previously IO was parallelized by issuing IOs from
> multipl
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:30:06AM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> Recently there was discussion about an "FIle Extent MAP"(FIEMAP) ioctl for
> efficiently mapping the extents and holes of a file. This will be many times
> more efficient than FIBMAP by cutting down the number of ioctls.
>
> This pat
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:45:07PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> By request on #linuxfs, here is the FIEMAP spec that we used to implement
> the FIEMAP support for ext4. There was an ext4 patch posted on August 29
> to linux-ext4 entitled "[PATCH] FIEMAP ioctl".
Link:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 08:27:47AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 09:29 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 05:02:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Please correct me if any of the following assumptions is wrong:
> > > - SE
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 04:09:20PM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:51:56AM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
> >But this is really irrelevant - the issue at hand is what we want
> >for VFS level delalloc support. IMO, that mechanism needs t
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 05:02:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Please correct me if any of the following assumptions is wrong:
> - SELinux is currently the only user of filesystem security labels
> shipped with the Linux kernel
> - if a user has SELinux enabled he wants his filesystems to support
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:51:56AM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >Using a new API for new functionality is a bad thing?
>
> if existing API can be used ...
Sure, but using the existing APIs is no good if the only filesystem
in the kernel that supports delalloc
[please don't top post!]
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:33:08PM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >The XFS one is proven and the work was already completed.
> >
> >What were the specific technical issues that made it unsuitable for ext4?
> >
> >I would rather not reinvent the wheel, part
tten region requires a node split, that could result
> in the allocation of new meta data which obviously could fail if the disk is
> truly full.
% git-log 84e1e99f112dead8f9ba036c02d24a9f5ce7f544 |head -10
commit 84e1e99f112dead8f9ba036c02d24a9f5ce7f544
Author: David Chinner <[EMAIL PRO
FYI.
Initial support for fallocate-based pre-allocation in
xfs_io for testing. This currently only works on ia64 because
of the hard coded syscall number and will require autoconf
magic to conditionally compile in this support.
This allows simple command-line based testing of fallocate
based allo
Initial implementation of ->fallocate for XFS.
Version 2:
o Make allocation and setting the file size atomic.
o Drop deallocate/punch functionality
o use mode field appropriately to determine if size needs changing.
---
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c | 47
sys_fallocate for ia64. This uses the empty slot originally
reserved for move_pages.
Signed-Off-By: Dave Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/ia64/kernel/entry.S |2 +-
include/asm-ia64/unistd.h |2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/arch/ia64/kern
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 06:16:01PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> Following is the modified version of the manpage originally submitted by
> David Chinner. Please use `nroff -man fallocate.2 | less` to view.
>
> This includes changes suggested by Heikki Orsila and Barry Naujok.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:58:13PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
>
> Why don't we just merge the interface for preallocation (essentially
> enough to satisfy posix_fallocate() and the simple XFS requirement for
> space reservation without changing file size), which there is clear agreement
>
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 08:28:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:10:19 +1000 David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Seems sane, although one does wonder whether it's a worthy tradeoff. We
> add additional overhead to readpage[s]() just to avoid
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:21:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:02:47PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > Can you clarify - what is the current behaviour when ENOSPC (or some other
> > > error) is hit? Does it keep the current fallocate() or does it free it?
> >
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:49:13PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:18:04AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > > On M
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 09:28:36AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 23:36 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > Allows setup_swap_extents() to use preallocated files on XFS
> > filesystems for swap files without ever needing to convert them.
>
> Using
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:49:15PM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007 09:14 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > Someone on the XFs list had an interesting request - preallocated
> > swap files. You can't use unwritten extents for this because
> > of sys_sw
estamps
when punching out data blocks or preallocating new ones.
> Hmm.. I personally will call it a bug in XFS code then. :)
No, I'd call it useful. :)
> > > I think, modifying ctime/mtime should be dependent on the other flags.
> > > E.g., if we do not zero out data bl
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:42:50AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007 16:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > In XFS one of the (many) ALLOC modes is to zero existing data on allocate.
> > > For ext4 all this would mea
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2007 19:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > +#define FA_FL_DEALLOC 0x01 /* default is allocate */
> > +#define FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE0x02 /* default is extend/shrink size */
> > +#define FA_FL_DEL_DATA 0x04 /* defaul
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > Can you clarify - what is the current behaviour when ENOSPC (or some other
> > > error) is hit? Does it kee
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 06:58:10PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> 2) The above new patches (4/7 and 7/7) are based on the dicussion
>between Andreas Dilger and David Chinner on the mode argument,
>when later posted a man page on fallocate.
Can you include the man page in this
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2007 20:33 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > I have not implemented FA_FL_FREE_ENOSPC and FA_ZERO_SPACE flags yet, as
> > *suggested* by Andreas in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/323 post.
> > If it is decided that these f
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:31:53PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:57:59PM +0400, Dmitriy Monakhov wrote:
> > Function prerform check for signgle region, with out respect to
> > segment nature of iovec, For example writev no longer works :)
>
> Btw, could someo
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 03:14:58AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007 09:52 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > B FA_PREALLOCATE
> > provides the same functionality as
> > B FA_ALLOCATE
> > except it does not ever change the file size. This allows allocation
&g
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:46:52AM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> Did you get time to write the above man page ? It will help to push
> further patches in time (eg. for FA_PREALLOCATE mode).
First pass is attached.
`nroff -man fallocate.2 | less` to view.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:46:52AM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 06:01:57PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > Minimal definition to replace what applicaitons use on XFS and to
> > support poasix_fallocate are the thre that have been mentioned so
>
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:32:57PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 10:21 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0200, Jean noel Cordenner wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This is an update of the i_version patch.
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0200, Jean noel Cordenner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is an update of the i_version patch.
> The i_version field is a 64bit counter that is set on every inode
> creation and that is incremented every time the inode data is modified
> (similarly to the "ctime" time-sta
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 07:21:16AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:16 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:33:59AM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
>
> > > Following changes were made to the previous version:
> > > 1) Added de
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:33:59AM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> This patch implements sys_fallocate() and adds support on i386, x86_64
> and powerpc platforms.
Can you please pick up the ia64 support patch I posted as well?
> Changelog:
> -
> Note: The changes below are from the initial
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 04:33:01PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 08:39:50AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > All I'm really interested in right now is that the fallocate
> > _interface_ can be used as a *complete replacement* for the
> >
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:26:20PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:59:26AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:31:02PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > I have the updated patches ready which take care of Andrew's comments.
&g
nge the
file size atomically.
> 4) Should we update mtime & ctime on a successfull allocation/
>unallocation ?
>- David Chinner raised this question in following post:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/29/407
> I think it makes sense to update the [mc]time for a succes
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 03:05:56PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 12:50 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:56:23PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > > In any case, it would be useful to add a new set of testsuites for the
> > >
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:56:23PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> In any case, it would be useful to add a new set of testsuites for the
> new fallocate() syscall and fsstress in LTP testsuites to automatically
> the preallocation code in ext4/XFS.
I hacked an existing XFS test prog to do manual tes
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:28:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:31 +1000 David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:29:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:33:32 +0530 "Amit K. Arora"
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:29:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:33:32 +0530 "Amit K. Arora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch implements the fallocate() system call and adds support for
> > i386, x86_64 and powerpc.
> >
> > ...
> > +{
> > + struct file *file;
>
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 10:36:12AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On 2 May 2007, at 10:15, David Chinner wrote:
> >On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 07:46:53PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> >>And all applications will run against a multitude of
> >>kernels. So version X
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 09:23:38AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On a different issue, do you think it would be worth adding an option
> flags like FIEMAP_DONT_RELOCATE or something similar that would be a
> compulsory flag and if set the FS is not allowed to move the file
> around/chang
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 07:46:53PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On 1 May 2007, at 15:20, David Chinner wrote:
> >>
> >>So, either the filesystem will understand the flag or iff the
> >>unknown flag
> >>is in the incompat set, it will return EINVAL or
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 03:30:40PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On May 01, 2007 14:22 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:44:01PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > Hmm, I'd thought "offline" would migrate to EXTENT_UNKNOWN, but I didn&
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 07:37:20PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On 1 May 2007, at 05:22, David Chinner wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:44:01PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> >> The FIBMAP ioctl is for privileged users
> >> only, and I wonder if FIEMAP shou
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 09:39:06PM -0700, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 14:22 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:44:01PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > This is actually for future use. Any flags that are added into this
> > >
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:44:01PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2007 11:54 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > > struct fiemap {
> > > __u64 fm_start; /* logical start offset of mapping (in/out) */
> > > __u64 fm_len; /* log
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
>
> > For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size if we
> > allocate past EOF, right?
>
> I would argue no. Use truncate for t
Add new mode to ->fallocate() to allow allocation to occur
beyond the current EOF without changing the file size. Implement
in XFS ->fallocate() vector.
Signed-Off-By: Dave Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c |8 +---
include/linux/fs.h |1 +
2 files
Add XFS support for ->fallocate() vector.
Signed-Off-By: Dave Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c | 48
1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c
==
ia64 fallocate syscall support.
Signed-Off-By: Dave Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/ia64/kernel/entry.S |1 +
include/asm-ia64/unistd.h |3 ++-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/arch/ia64/kernel/entry.S
===
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:20:56PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> Based on the discussion, this new patchset uses following as the
> interface for fallocate() system call:
>
> asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
Ok, so now for the hard questions - what are t
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:21:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2007 21:22 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:05:50AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > struct fiemap_extent {
> > > __u64 fe_start; /* starting offse
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:05:50AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I'm interested in getting input for implementing an ioctl to efficiently
> map file extents & holes (FIEMAP) instead of looping over FIBMAP a billion
> times. We already have customers with single files in the 10TB range and
> we ad
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 10:46:56AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> fallocate with the whence argument and flags is already quite complicated,
> >> I'd rather have another call for placement decisions, that would
> >> be called on an fd to do plac
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:09:57PM +0300, Alex Tomas wrote:
>
> Good day,
>
> >>>>> David Chinner (DC) writes:
>
> DC> So that mean's we'll have 2 separate mechanisms for marking
> DC> pages as delalloc. XFS uses the BH_delay flag to indica
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 09:27:18AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 02:31:23PM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > > - ext4-delayed-allocation.patch
> > >delayed allocation itself, enabled by "delalloc" mount option.
> > >extent
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 11:20:08PM +0300, Alex Tomas wrote:
>
> Good day,
>
> probably the previous set of patches (including mballoc/lg)
> is too large. so, I reworked delayed allocation a bit so
> that it can be used on top of regular balloc, though it
> still can be used with extents-enabled f
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 09:35:30PM -0500, Josef Sipek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 12:44:27PM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > Maybe we should be using EAs for this sort of thing instead of flags
> > on the inode? If we keep adding inode flags for generic features
> > then
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 07:56:19PM -0500, Josef Sipek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 08:11:00PM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > They are defined but unused in 2.6.19, right? I can't see anywhere
> > in the 2.6.19 ext2/3/4/reiser trees that actually those flags,
>
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:41:28AM -0500, Nikolai Joukov wrote:
> > > As we promised on the linux-ext4 list on October 31, here is the patch
> > > that adds secure deletion via a trash-bin functionality for ext4. It is a
> > > compromise solution that combines secure deletion with the trash-bin
>
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:33:55PM -0500, Nikolai Joukov wrote:
> As we promised on the linux-ext4 list on October 31, here is the patch
> that adds secure deletion via a trash-bin functionality for ext4. It is a
> compromise solution that combines secure deletion with the trash-bin support
> (the
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 06:44:58PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:30:30PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > BTW, does use of sysfs mean ASCII encoding of all the data
> > > > passing between kernel and userspace?
> > > Not necessarify but mostly yes. At least I intend to have
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:30:30PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > So in this email I try to propose some interface which should hopefully
> > > address most of the concerns. The type of the interface is sysfs like
> > > (idea taken from ext2meta) - that has a few advantages:
> > > - no 32/64-bit c
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:39:29PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> from the thread after my patch implementing ext3 online
> defragmentation I found out that probably the only (and definitely the
> biggest) issue is the interface. Someone wants is common enough so that
> we can profit from co
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 01:37:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:00:52PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > We don't need to expose anything filesystem specific to userspace to
> > implement this. Online data movement (i.e. the defrag mechanism)
> > becomes something like:
> >
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:33:16PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:40:20AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > We don't need to expose anything filesystem specific to userspace to
> > implement this. Online data movement (i.e. the defrag mechanism)
> &
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:00:52PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 06:11:37PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:01:42AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:38:23PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:01:42AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:38:23PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:48:44AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > So why are you arguing that an interface is no good because it
> > is fundament
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:48:44AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:27:53PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > But it a race that is _easily_ handled, and applications only need to
> > implement one interface, not a different method for every
> > filesyste
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 10:42:57PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:30:02PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote:
> > Could we have a more abstract method for asking the filesystem where the
> > free blocks are and then using the same block addressing to tell the
> > fs where to allocat
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:44:16PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:59:28PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > That's the wrong way to look at it. if you want the userspace
> > process to specify a location, then you should preallocate it first
> >
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:26:26AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 02:01 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:51:41AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 23:59 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > > > That
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:51:41AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 23:59 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 12:14:33AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 06:31:40PM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
> > > > isn&#x
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 12:14:33AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 06:31:40PM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
> > isn't that a kernel responsbility to find/allocate target blocks?
> > wouldn't it better to specify desirable target group and minimal
> > acceptable chunk of free blocks?
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:49:10AM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:19:04AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 09:15:28PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> >>>Hi Dave,
> >>>
> >>>My
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:19:04AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 09:15:28PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > My recollection is that it used to default to on, it was disabled
> > because it needs to map the buffer into a single contiguous chunk
> > of kerne
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:53:02PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> You might want to think about keeping the directory a little
> more contiguous than individual disk blocks. XFS does have
> code in it to allocate the directory in chunks larger than
> a single file system block. It does not get used on
83 matches
Mail list logo
