Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: generic: Check if a bull fallocate will change extent number

Dave Chinner
2015-09-30T04:21:13Z

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 09:05:15AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> Dave Chinner wrote on 2015/09/30 07:51 +1000:
> >On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
> >>should not add an extent.
> >
> >Why not? Filesystems can do whatever they want with extents during
> >a fallocate call. e.g. if the blocks are shared, then fallocate
> >might break the block sharing so future overwrites don't get
> >ENOSPC. This is a requirement set down by posix_fallocate(3)
> >
> >"After a successful call to posix_fallocate(), subsequent writes to
> >bytes in the specified range are guaranteed not to fail because of
> >lack of disk space."
> >
> >Hence if you've got a file with shared blocks, a "full fallocate"
> >must change the extent layout to break the sharing. As such, the
> >premise of this test is wrong.
>
> First, btrfs never meets the posix_fallocate requirement by its COW nature.
>
> Btrfs fallocate can only ensure at most next write will not cause ENOSPC.

Which, it can be successfully argued, meets the basic requirement of
posix_fallocate(). i.e. "subsequent writes" is "one or more" future
writes.

But in trying to explain how COW works you've completely missed the
point I was making about a fundamental principle that COW is based
on - overwrite requires allocation. Hence fallocate must be allowed
modify the underlying layout of a file, even if the file is already
full of allocated blocks and data.

This isn't just btrfs - any filesystem that does dedupe or reflink
or snapshots or compression or any other sort of operation that can
cause extent reallocation on overwrite *may* change the file layout
during a fallocate call to guarantee the next write succeeds.

> It's OK not to consider it as a bug, at least data is not corrupted.
> But IMO the btrfs behavior is not needed and need optimization.
> So kernel patch is submitted to btrfs ml:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7284431/

That's a link to the fstests patch, not a btrfs kernel patch. :/

> And if fstests is not the proper place, any idea where such "test
> case" should belong?

You still haven't understood what I said. If you want to test that
btrfs does not truncate extents beyond EOF when fallocate is called,
then it's a btrfs test. Yes, You can do whatever you want with
btrfs, but you've proposed a generic test that applies a constraint
to a generic operation that has no such constraint defined in it's
API. If you want to constrain fallocate behaviour like this, then
take it to linux-fsdevel and get everyone to agree on the
constraint, and then I'll take it as a generic test...

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com