On Tuesday 23 June 2015 06:29 PM, Ján Tomko wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 05:09:18PM +0530, Prerna Saxena wrote:
> From: Prerna Saxena <prerna(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 02:54:32 -0500
>
> When virsh vol-clone is attempted on a raw file where capacity > allocation,
> the resulting cloned volume has a size that matches the virtual-size of
> the parent; in place of matching its actual, disk size.
> This patch fixes the cloned disk to have same _allocated_size_ as
> the parent file from which it was cloned.
>
> Ref:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-May/msg00050.html
>
> Also fixes:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1130739
>
> Signed-off-by: Prerna Saxena <prerna(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> src/storage/storage_backend.c | 10 +++++-----
> src/storage/storage_driver.c | 5 -----
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/storage/storage_backend.c b/src/storage/storage_backend.c
> index ce59f63..c99b718 100644
> --- a/src/storage/storage_backend.c
> +++ b/src/storage/storage_backend.c
> @@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ virStorageBackendCreateBlockFrom(virConnectPtr conn
ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> goto cleanup;
> }
>
> - remain = vol->target.allocation;
> + remain = vol->target.capacity;
>
> if (inputvol) {
> int res = virStorageBackendCopyToFD(vol, inputvol,
> @@ -397,7 +397,7 @@ createRawFile(int fd, virStorageVolDefPtr vol,
> virStorageVolDefPtr inputvol,
> bool reflink_copy)
> {
> - bool need_alloc = true;
> + bool need_alloc = !(inputvol && (inputvol->target.capacity >
inputvol->target.allocation));
Comparing 'inputvol->target.capacity > vol->target.allocation' would
allow creating a sparse volume from a non-sparse one and vice-versa
by specifying the correct allocation.
Ok, I was not sure if libvirt wanted to do that.
If the parent volume is a sparse volume, I'd expect the cloned volume to be sparse
too. Likewise, for a non-sparse parent, the cloned volume should also be non-sparse.
Should that not be something we
honour in libvirt, when we clone ?
> int ret = 0;
> unsigned long long remain;
>
> @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ createRawFile(int fd, virStorageVolDefPtr vol,
> * to writing zeroes block by block in case fallocate isn't
> * available, and since we're going to copy data from another
> * file it doesn't make sense to write the file twice. */
> - if (vol->target.allocation) {
> + if (vol->target.allocation && need_alloc) {
> if (fallocate(fd, 0, 0, vol->target.allocation) == 0) {
> need_alloc = false;
> } else if (errno != ENOSYS && errno != EOPNOTSUPP) {
> @@ -433,14 +433,14 @@ createRawFile(int fd, virStorageVolDefPtr vol,
> }
> #endif
>
> - remain = vol->target.allocation;
> + remain = vol->target.capacity;
>
> if (inputvol) {
> /* allow zero blocks to be skipped if we've requested sparse
> * allocation (allocation < capacity) or we have already
> * been able to allocate the required space. */
> bool want_sparse = !need_alloc ||
> - (vol->target.allocation < inputvol->target.capacity);
> + (inputvol->target.allocation < inputvol->target.capacity);
If allocation < capacity, then need_alloc is already false.
I was trying to accomodate the original usecase of need_alloc, but you are right.
This will go away in the next version of this series, which I will post shortly.
--
Prerna Saxena
Linux Technology Centre,
IBM Systems and Technology Lab,
Bangalore, India