From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bob Peterson Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 08:34:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH][try6] VFS: new want_holesize and got_holesize buffer_head flags for fiemap In-Reply-To: <20141023085143.GC24965@infradead.org> References: <635673293.9099204.1413939501068.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <579956475.9102148.1413940195344.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20141022060434.GA11237@infradead.org> <90509064.9314451.1413980933011.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20141023085143.GC24965@infradead.org> Message-ID: <170719280.10059324.1414067697995.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:28:53AM -0400, Bob Peterson wrote: > > Yes, I thought about that. > > One of my early prototypes had a separate function used by fiemap. > > Function __generic_block_fiemap would call get_block() which > > returned an indication of a hole as it does today. When it saw > > the hole, fiemap called a new function get_hole_size() that was > > passed in like get_block. The problem is: it's grossly inefficient, > > since the new function get_hole_size() has to redo most of the work > > that get_block just did (at least in the case of GFS2). (Which in the > > case of a 1PB sparse file is non-trivial, since it involves several > > levels of metadata indirection). Combining it with get_block made it > > much more efficient. > > > > Making a separate get_block_map_fiemap() function just seems like an > > exercise in redundancy. > > I was thinking of replacing get_blocks entirely. We're not actually > using a buffer_head in fiemap, so the interface seems somewhat awkward. > If it used something like the iomap interface proposed by Dave long > time ago we'd have a much saner interface that for example XFS could use > as well. Hi Christoph. Can you send a link to the thread regarding Dave's iomap? proposal? I don't recall it offhand, so I don't know what it was or why it was never implemented. I assume you mean Dave Chinner. Maybe it's time to revisit the concept as a long-term solution. In the meantime, do you otherwise object to this patch as a short-term solution? Regards, Bob Peterson Red Hat File Systems