Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1362086 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: implement (some of) fallocate for block devices

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: implement (some of) fallocate for block  devices Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> - 2016-03-21 20:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: implement (some of) fallocate for block  devices Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> - 2016-03-21 22:00 +0100

#1362086 — Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: implement (some of) fallocate for block devices

On Mon, Mar 21 2016 at  3:11pm -0400,
Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 02:52:00PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Darrick J. Wong
> > <darrick.wong@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > After much discussion, it seems that the fallocate feature flag
> > > FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE maps nicely to SCSI WRITE SAME; and the feature
> > > FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE maps nicely to the devices that have been
> > > whitelisted for zeroing SCSI UNMAP.  Punch still requires that
> > > FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE is set.  A length that goes past the end of the
> > > device will be clamped to the device size if KEEP_SIZE is set; or will
> > > return -EINVAL if not.  Both start and length must be aligned to the
> > > device's logical block size.
> > >
> > > Since the semantics of fallocate are fairly well established already,
> > > wire up the two pieces.  The other fallocate variants (collapse range,
> > > insert range, and allocate blocks) are not supported.
> > 
> > I'd like to see fallocate (block allocation) extend down to DM thinp.
> > This more traditional use of fallocate would be useful for ensuring
> > ENOSPC won't occur -- especially important if the FS has committed
> > space in response to fallocate.  As of now fallocate doesn't inform DM
> > thinp at all.  Curious why you decided not to wire it up?
> 
> I don't know what to wire it up to. :)

Fair enough.  Yes something needs to be invented.
 
> I didn't find any blkdev_* function that looked encouraging, though I
> haven't dug too deeply into bfoster's "prototype a block reservation
> allocation model" patchset yet.  At a high level I'd guess that would
> be a reasonable piece to connect to?  It looks like the piece I want
> is blk_provision_space().

Yes, something like that.

> > But I'm not sure what "it" (the "allocate blocks" variant) even is
> > given falloc.h doesn't show anything like "_ALLOCATE_BLOCKS"...
> 
> The default behavior of fallocate is to allocate blocks, which means
> that one invokes it by not passing any mode flags (except possibly
> KEEP_SIZE).

OK.

> > It would require a new block interface to pass the fallocate extent
> > down.  But it seems bizarre to implement "some of" fallocate but not
> > the most widely used case for fallocate.
> 
> Agreed.  I'd like to get the existing functionality wired up sooner than
> later, and plumbing "allocate blocks" down to thinp can be done as a
> followup.
> 
> (Or stall long enough that it becomes one patchset.)

Sure, sounds good.  Glad we're in agreement.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1362146

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 03:22:29PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21 2016 at  3:11pm -0400,
> Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 02:52:00PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Darrick J. Wong
> > > <darrick.wong@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > > After much discussion, it seems that the fallocate feature flag
> > > > FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE maps nicely to SCSI WRITE SAME; and the feature
> > > > FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE maps nicely to the devices that have been
> > > > whitelisted for zeroing SCSI UNMAP.  Punch still requires that
> > > > FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE is set.  A length that goes past the end of the
> > > > device will be clamped to the device size if KEEP_SIZE is set; or will
> > > > return -EINVAL if not.  Both start and length must be aligned to the
> > > > device's logical block size.
> > > >
> > > > Since the semantics of fallocate are fairly well established already,
> > > > wire up the two pieces.  The other fallocate variants (collapse range,
> > > > insert range, and allocate blocks) are not supported.
> > > 
> > > I'd like to see fallocate (block allocation) extend down to DM thinp.
> > > This more traditional use of fallocate would be useful for ensuring
> > > ENOSPC won't occur -- especially important if the FS has committed
> > > space in response to fallocate.  As of now fallocate doesn't inform DM
> > > thinp at all.  Curious why you decided not to wire it up?
> > 
> > I don't know what to wire it up to. :)
> 
> Fair enough.  Yes something needs to be invented.
>  
> > I didn't find any blkdev_* function that looked encouraging, though I
> > haven't dug too deeply into bfoster's "prototype a block reservation
> > allocation model" patchset yet.  At a high level I'd guess that would
> > be a reasonable piece to connect to?  It looks like the piece I want
> > is blk_provision_space().
> 
> Yes, something like that.
> 

Just a note that the caveat/hack with the provision call in there is
that it returns an allocated block count. That was necessary to help
maintain the local reservation accounting. I'd love to find a way to
handle that more cleanly or take advantage of generic fallocate, but I
don't have a clear idea on how to do that at the moment. (I do wonder
whether an internal-only set of falloc "reserve" flags would fly...).

Anyways, that's a separate topic. Feel free to steal any of that dm-thin
provision code if it is useful for generic fallocate(). :)

Brian

> > > But I'm not sure what "it" (the "allocate blocks" variant) even is
> > > given falloc.h doesn't show anything like "_ALLOCATE_BLOCKS"...
> > 
> > The default behavior of fallocate is to allocate blocks, which means
> > that one invokes it by not passing any mode flags (except possibly
> > KEEP_SIZE).
> 
> OK.
> 
> > > It would require a new block interface to pass the fallocate extent
> > > down.  But it seems bizarre to implement "some of" fallocate but not
> > > the most widely used case for fallocate.
> > 
> > Agreed.  I'd like to get the existing functionality wired up sooner than
> > later, and plumbing "allocate blocks" down to thinp can be done as a
> > followup.
> > 
> > (Or stall long enough that it becomes one patchset.)
> 
> Sure, sounds good.  Glad we're in agreement.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web