Re: [patch 2/15] fs/logfs/logfs_abi.h

From: JÃrn Engel
Date: Tue Apr 08 2008 - 05:40:20 EST


On Tue, 8 April 2008 02:24:17 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> Great to see a new version finally posted again!

As Artem already noted, the transition to write-back caching was a
significant change and initially caused a huge drop in quality. Took a
while.

> On Tuesday 01 April 2008, joern@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > --- /dev/null 2008-04-02 16:29:12.813336657 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6.24logfs/fs/logfs/logfs_abi.h 2008-04-01 21:02:34.980239877 +0200
> > @@ -0,0 +1,523 @@
> > +/*
> > + * fs/logfs/logfs.h
>
> The comment doesn't match the file name, and the file name doesn't
> match the purpose -- you are not defining an "application" binary
> interface but rather the medium format, with the small exception
> of the chattr flags.

Now it matches the file name. If you have a better name than "abi",
I'll use that.

> > +#ifndef fs_logfs_logfs_abi_h
> > +#define fs_logfs_logfs_abi_h
>
> Everyone else uses capital letters for these.

Changed.

> > +/*
> > + * LOGFS_HEADERSIZE is the size of a single header in the object store,
> > + * LOGFS_MAX_OBJECTSIZE the size of the largest possible object, including
> > + * its header,
> > + * LOGFS_SEGMENT_RESERVE is the amount of space reserved for each segment for
> > + * its segment header and the padded space at the end when no further objects
> > + * fit.
> > + */
> > +#define LOGFS_HEADERSIZE (0x1c)
> > +#define LOGFS_SEGMENT_HEADERSIZE (0x18)
> > +#define LOGFS_MAX_OBJECTSIZE (LOGFS_HEADERSIZE + LOGFS_BLOCKSIZE)
> > +#define LOGFS_SEGMENT_RESERVE (LOGFS_HEADERSIZE + LOGFS_MAX_OBJECTSIZE - 1)
>
> The comment makes it sound like the last line should be
>
> #define LOGFS_SEGMENT_RESERVE (LOGFS_SEGMENT_HEADERSIZE + LOGFS_MAX_OBJECTSIZE - 1)

Correct. Changed.

> > +/**
> > + * struct logfs_disk_dentry - on-medium dentry structure
> > + *
> > + * @ino: inode number
> > + * @namelen: length of file name
> > + * @type: file type, identical to bits 12..15 of mode
> > + * @name: file name
> > + */
> > +struct logfs_disk_dentry {
> > + __be64 ino;
> > + __be16 namelen;
> > + __u8 type;
> > + __u8 name[LOGFS_MAX_NAMELEN];
> > +} __attribute__((packed));
>
> With LOGFS_MAX_NAMELEN == 255, this data structure is not aligned to 64
> bits, which means that accessing the inode number requires unaligned
> memory accesses when you have an array of logfs_disk_dentry structures
> on the medium. Is that intentional?
>
> If you add another 32 bits here, you don't need the __packed any more.

6 bytes, actually. Not a bad idea. I just have to make sure they are
properly zeroed and don't cause an information leak.

> > +/**
> > + * struct logfs_object_header - per-object header in the ostore
> > + *
> > + * @crc: crc32 of header, excluding data_crc
> > + * @len: length of data
> > + * @type: object type, see above
> > + * @compr: compression type
> > + * @ino: inode number
> > + * @bix: block index
> > + * @data_crc: crc32 of payload
> > + */
> > +struct logfs_object_header {
> > + __be32 crc;
> > + __be16 len;
> > + __u8 type;
> > + __u8 compr;
> > + __be64 ino;
> > + __be64 bix;
> > + __be32 data_crc;
> > +} __attribute__((packed));
>
> Similarly, this structure contains 8 byte members but has a smaller
> size.

I really don't want to enlarge the structure. Every single block gets
one of them, so they cause a significant overhead. Adding padding for
the in-memory structure and not copying it to/from the medium would make
sense, but that's not a trivial change. Needs more thought.

For the record, I removed the __packed on all other structures and
replaced it with something like this:

#define SIZE_CHECK(type, size) \
static inline void check_##type(void) \
{ \
BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct type) != (size)); \
}

...

struct logfs_journal_header {
__be32 h_crc;
__be16 h_len;
__be16 h_datalen;
__be16 h_type;
__be16 h_version;
__u8 h_compr;
__u8 h_pad[3];
};

SIZE_CHECK(logfs_journal_header, 16);

JÃrn

--
Do not stop an army on its way home.
-- Sun Tzu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/