From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752650AbXCMXrR (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:47:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752647AbXCMXrR (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:47:17 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:54897 "EHLO netops-testserver-3.corp.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752135AbXCMXrP (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:47:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:46:25 +1100 From: David Chinner To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Ulrich Drepper , Christoph Hellwig , Mingming Cao , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , nscott@aconex.com, "Amit K. Arora" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, suparna@in.ibm.com, alex@clusterfs.com, suzuki@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() Message-ID: <20070313234625.GB6095633@melbourne.sgi.com> References: <20070301183445.GA7911@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070301142537.b5950cd7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1172788855.26078.294.camel@edge> <20070301145256.3e999932.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <45E86CBA.3070905@us.ibm.com> <20070305122742.GA11486@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <45EC7773.7020603@us.ibm.com> <20070306072850.GA23081@infradead.org> <45ED7C59.4050508@redhat.com> <45ED9B00.3020502@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45ED9B00.3020502@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 10:46:56AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> fallocate with the whence argument and flags is already quite complicated, > >> I'd rather have another call for placement decisions, that would > >> be called on an fd to do placement decissions for any further allocations > >> (prealloc, write, etc) > > > > Yes, posix_fallocate shouldn't be made more complicated. But I don't > > understand why requesting linear layout of the blocks should be an > > option. It's always an advantage if the blocks requested this way are > > linear on disk. So, the kernel should always do its best to make this > > happen, without needing an additional option. > > > > Agreed on both points. The hints would be for things like start block, > or speculative EOF preallocation, not contiguity, which I think should > always be the goal. ISTR having had this discussion before ;) About guided preallocation for defrag: http://marc.info/?t=116247859500001&r=1&w=2 e.g.: The sorts of policies we need for effective use of preallocation: http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=116184475308164&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=116278169519095&w=2 Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group