qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[PATCH] block/file-posix: Fix problem with fallocate(PUNCH_HOLE) on GPFS


From: Thomas Huth
Subject: [PATCH] block/file-posix: Fix problem with fallocate(PUNCH_HOLE) on GPFS
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 07:23:33 +0200

A customer reported that running

 qemu-img convert -t none -O qcow2 -f qcow2 input.qcow2 output.qcow2

fails for them with the following error message when the images are
stored on a GPFS file system:

 qemu-img: error while writing sector 0: Invalid argument

After analyzing the strace output, it seems like the problem is in
handle_aiocb_write_zeroes(): The call to fallocate(FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)
returns EINVAL, which can apparently happen if the file system has
a different idea of the granularity of the operation. It's arguably
a bug in GPFS, since the PUNCH_HOLE mode should not result in EINVAL
according to the man-page of fallocate(), but the file system is out
there in production and so we have to deal with it. In commit 294682cc3a
("block: workaround for unaligned byte range in fallocate()") we also
already applied the a work-around for the same problem to the earlier
fallocate(FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE) call, so do it now similar with the
PUNCH_HOLE call.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
---
 block/file-posix.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/block/file-posix.c b/block/file-posix.c
index 20e14f8e96..7a40428d52 100644
--- a/block/file-posix.c
+++ b/block/file-posix.c
@@ -1675,6 +1675,13 @@ static int handle_aiocb_write_zeroes(void *opaque)
             }
             s->has_fallocate = false;
         } else if (ret != -ENOTSUP) {
+            if (ret == -EINVAL) {
+                /*
+                 * File systems like GPFS do not like unaligned byte ranges,
+                 * treat it like unsupported (so caller falls back to pwrite)
+                 */
+                return -ENOTSUP;
+            }
             return ret;
         } else {
             s->has_discard = false;
-- 
2.27.0




reply via email to

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