Re: [PATCH] xfs_io: add the lseek() SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE support

Eric Sandeen
2013-08-21T18:31:21Z

On 8/21/13 11:52 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
...

>> I think it makes sense to build it& locally define if necessary.
>> On my RHEL6 root w/ an upstream devel kernel seek.c wouldn't have
>> built, even though it'd have worked perfectly w/ a local define.
>>
>
> yes, needed anyway if removing linux/fs.h

lseek only should need:

#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>

right; those may internally get to linux/fs.h but it shouldn't be
directly required, I'd expect. Oh! it needs

#define _GNU_SOURCE

first, to get it - but xfsprogs build does that already.

>> So let me just think out loud here w/ examples.
>>
>> For a 1M 100% nonsparse file we get:
>>
>> # io/xfs_io -c "seek -ar 0" alldata
>> Type offset
>> DATA 0
>> HOLE 1048576
>
> or this could be HOLE EOF depends on the version.

xfs version? Just for my own education, which version does that?

>> DATA EOF
>>
>> For a 1M 100% sparse file (i_size and no blocks at all) we get:
>>
>> # io/xfs_io -c "seek -ar 0" allsparse
>> Type offset
>> HOLE 0
>> DATA EOF
>>
>> For a 1M file w/ only the first 512k w/ data, then hole,
>> we get:
>>
>> # io/xfs_io -c "seek -ar 0" endhole
>> Type offset
>> DATA 0
>> HOLE 524288
>> DATA EOF
>>
>> For a 1M file w/ 512k of hole and then 512k w/ data, we get:
>>
>> # io/xfs_io -c "seek -ar 0" starthole
>> Type offset
>> HOLE 0
>> DATA 524288
>> HOLE 1048576
>> DATA EOF
>>
>> So in each case, the "DATA EOF" at the end seems odd to me.
>>
>> And in each case above, the output is unique w/o the EOF flag
>> anwyway, right?
>
> ... or we will get "HOLE EOF"
>
> There are different versions of XFS seek_data and they will
> detect/report the start of data and holes differently so output
> parsing will be a bear. The existing C code sends the 2 different
> value numbers that could be reported.

are they ... both correct? If one is a bug, it can just be a bug, right?
I'm sorry I'm not up on the history.

> The later, advance dirty page detection is more fine tuned. Jeff and
> I had C tests for this feature that I turned into a xfstest; it was
> suggested that the C test become xfs_io call, and then 5 versions
> later, we have this ...

6 versions. :D

>
>>
>> I'm probably missing it; in what cases is the EOF record
>> useful? It just seems beyond the scope of SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA.
>> (i.e. EOF is SEEK_END)
>>
>> If the EOF is really helpful, maybe it is possible instead to do something like:
>>
>> # io/xfs_io -c "seek -ar 0" starthole
>> Type offset
>> HOLE 0
>> DATA 524288
>> EOF 1048575
>> HOLE 1048576
>>
>> That makes more intuitive sense to me if you really need the EOF
>> record, but I dunno, what do you think?
>>
> I can drop the table header.
>
> We can leave off the implied eof - there will be cases where there is no entries.

Well, whatever you think, I guess. Given that the interface is _defined_ as having
an implicit hole past EOF, saying "DATA EOF" just hurts my brain.

Maybe the guiding principle should be: this is a tool to exercise lseek for
SEEK_DATA / SEEK_HOLE. It should report the results of those ops, and no
more; just present what the requested call(s) said. If you really want to know
where EOF is, use stat?

(Since the command is just called "seek" maybe some day it will grow
-e -s -c options for SEEK_END, SEEK_SET, and SEEK_CUR as well, to be
able to exercise every "whence" - and then if you want to know EOF,
just send it SEEK_END and see what it returns)

>>>> I guess "DATA" doesn't get replaced by "0" ? Sorry, I failed cpp 101.
>>>> It prints the right thing so I guess not. ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>> :) no the defines are subscripts = see "current ="
>>
>> I did see that, I just wasn't sure if it'd replace it in literal
>> strings, but apparently not.
>>
>
> nope, strings are safe - did Coverity complain?

No, just my dumb brain.

-Eric