Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate

Josef Bacik
2010-11-09T02:08:58Z

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 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() operation.
> > I've tested this patch with XFS and BTRFS to make sure XFS did what it's
> > supposed to do and that BTRFS failed like it was supposed to. Thank you,
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > fs/open.c | 2 +-
> > include/linux/falloc.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > 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;
> >
> > /* Return error if mode is not supported */
> > - if (mode && !(mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE))
> > + if (mode && (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)))
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >
> > if (!(file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
> > diff --git a/include/linux/falloc.h b/include/linux/falloc.h
> > index 3c15510..851cba2 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/falloc.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/falloc.h
> > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> > #define _FALLOC_H_
> >
> > #define FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE 0x01 /* default is extend size */
> > +#define FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE 0X02 /* de-allocates range */
>
> 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 this functionality.
> 2 no glibc interface needs it
> 3 at the time, only XFS supported punching holes, so there
> is not need to support it in a generic interface
> 4 the use cases presented were not considered compelling
> enough to justify the additional complexity (!)
>
> In the end, I gave up arguing for it to be included because just
> getting the FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE functionality was a hard enough
> battle.
>
> Anyway, #3 isn't the case any more, #4 was just an excuse not to
> support anything ext4 couldn't do and lots of apps are calling
> fallocate directly (because glibc can't use FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE) so
> #2 isn't an issue, either. I guess that leaves #1 to be debated;
> I don't think there is any problem with doing what you propose.
>
> What I will suggest is that this requires a generic xfstest to be
> written and support added to xfs_io to enable that test (and others)
> to issue hole punches. Something along the lines of test 242 which I
> wrote for testing all the edge case of XFS_IOC_ZERO_RANGE (*) would be
> good.

Sounds good. Do you want me to build my PUNCH_HOLE patch ontop of your
ZERO_RANGE patch? Thanks,

Josef