qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/7] block: use fallocate(FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)


From: Max Reitz
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/7] block: use fallocate(FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) & fallocate(0) to write zeroes
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:48:37 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0

On 2015-01-27 at 08:51, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
This sequence works efficiently if FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE is not supported.
Unfortunately, FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE is supported on really modern systems
and only for a couple of filesystems. FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE is much more
mature.

The sequence of 2 operations FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE and 0 is necessary due
to the following reasons:
- FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE creates a hole in the file, the file becomes
   sparse. In order to retain original functionality we must allocate
   disk space afterwards. This is done using fallocate(0) call
- fallocate(0) without preceeding FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE will do nothing
   if called above already allocated areas of the file, i.e. the content
   will not be zeroed

This should increase the performance a bit for not-so-modern kernels.

Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <address@hidden>
CC: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
CC: Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden>
CC: Peter Lieven <address@hidden>
CC: Fam Zheng <address@hidden>
---
  block/raw-posix.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)

diff --git a/block/raw-posix.c b/block/raw-posix.c
index 3c35b2f..c039bef 100644
--- a/block/raw-posix.c
+++ b/block/raw-posix.c
@@ -967,6 +967,20 @@ static ssize_t handle_aiocb_write_zeroes(RawPosixAIOData 
*aiocb)
      }
  #endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_FALLOCATE_PUNCH_HOLE
+    if (s->has_discard) {
+        ret = do_fallocate(s->fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE,
+                           aiocb->aio_offset, aiocb->aio_nbytes);
+        if (ret < 0) {
+            if (ret == -ENOTSUP) {
+                s->has_discard = false;
+            }
+            return ret;
+        }
+        return do_fallocate(s->fd, 0, aiocb->aio_offset, aiocb->aio_nbytes);
+    }
+#endif
+

Sharing "has_discard" with handle_aiocb_discard() looks fine to me, because it's used for the the same do_fallocate() call there.

Once again, you should not abort if the first do_fallocate() returns ENOTSUP, because this is inconsistent with the behavior on the second call to handle_aiocb_write_zeroes() (where it falls through due to has_discard being false). Once again, this doesn't make a difference now, but very well might after the next patch.

And finally, do we need another has_foo for the fallocate(0) call? (like just "has_fallocate")

Max



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]