On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 12:14:49PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 08.04.2019 um 12:04 hat Kevin Wolf geschrieben:
> > Am 08.04.2019 um 11:44 hat Andrey Shinkevich geschrieben:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 06/04/2019 01:50, John Snow wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 4/5/19 10:24 AM, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
> > > >> On a file system used by the customer, fallocate() returns an error
> > > >> if the block is not properly aligned. So, bdrv_co_pwrite_zeroes()
> > > >> fails. We can handle that case the same way as it is done for the
> > > >> unsupported cases, namely, call to bdrv_driver_pwritev() that writes
> > > >> zeroes to an image for the unaligned chunk of the block.
> > > >>
> > > >> Suggested-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Shinkevich <andrey.shinkevich@virtuozzo.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>   block/io.c | 2 +-
> > > >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
> > > >> index dfc153b..0412a51 100644
> > > >> --- a/block/io.c
> > > >> +++ b/block/io.c
> > > >> @@ -1516,7 +1516,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_do_pwrite_zeroes(BlockDriverState *bs,
> > > >>               assert(!bs->supported_zero_flags);
> > > >>           }
> > > >>   
> > > >> -        if (ret == -ENOTSUP && !(flags & BDRV_REQ_NO_FALLBACK)) {
> > > >> +        if (ret < 0 && !(flags & BDRV_REQ_NO_FALLBACK)) {
> > > >>               /* Fall back to bounce buffer if write zeroes is unsupported */
> > > >>               BdrvRequestFlags write_flags = flags & ~BDRV_REQ_ZERO_WRITE;
> > > >>   
> > > >>
> > > > 
> > > > I suppose that if fallocate fails for any reason and we're allowing
> > > > fallback, we're either going to succeed ... or fail again very soon
> > > > thereafter.
> > > > 
> > > > Are there any cases where it is vital to not ignore the first fallocate
> > > > failure? I'm a little wary of ignoring the return code from
> > > > bdrv_co_pwrite_zeroes, but I am assuming that if there is a "real"
> > > > failure here that the following bounce writes will also fail "safely."
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not completely confident, but I have no tangible objections:
> > > > Reviewed-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Thank you for your review, John!
> > > 
> > > Let me clarify the circumstances and quote the bug report:
> > > "Customer had Win-2012 VM with 50GB system disk which was later resized 
> > > to 256GB without resizing the partition inside VM.
> > > Now, while trying to resize to 50G, the following error will appear
> > > 'Failed to reduce the number of L2 tables: Invalid argument'
> > > It was found that it is possible to shrink the disk to 128G and any size 
> > > above that number, but size below 128G will bring the mentioned error."
> > > 
> > > The fallocate() returns no error on that file system if the offset and
> > > the (offset + bytes) parameters of the bdrv_co_do_pwrite_zeroes() both
> > > are aligned to 4K.
> > 
> > What is the return value you get from this file system?
> > 
> > Maybe turning that into ENOTSUP in file-posix would be less invasive.
> > Just falling back for any error gives me the vague feeling that it could
> > cause problems sooner or later.
> 
> Also, which file system is this? This seems to be a file system bug.
> fallocate() isn't documented to possibly have alignment restrictions for
> FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE (if this is the operation you're talking about).
> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE even explicitly mentions the behaviour for partial
> blocks, so there is no doubt that operations for partial blocks are
> considered valid. Operations that may impose restrictions are explicitly
> documented as such.
> 
> So in any case, this would only be a workaround for a buggy file system.
> The real bug needs to be fixed there.

I agree regarding the root cause of the bug, but the fallback behavior
is reasonable IMO.

Andrey: If you update the patch with a more specific errno I'll queue
that patch instead.

Stefan