From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Cc: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: support {d,id,did,x}node checksum
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 17:41:40 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180210014140.GB1885@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55f144df-4419-3642-5b35-c8885cdb7354@kernel.org>
On 02/01, Chao Yu wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/2/1 6:15, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 01/31, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2018/1/31 10:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> What if we want to add more entries in addition to node_checksum? Do we have
> >>> to add a new feature flag at every time? How about adding a layout value instead
> >>
> >> Hmm.. for previous implementation, IMO, we'd better add a new feature flag at
> >> every time, otherwise, w/ extra_nsize only, in current image, we can know a
> >> valid range of extended area in node block, but we don't know which
> >> fields/features are valid/enabled or not.
> >>
> >> One more thing is that if we can add one feature flag for each field, we got one
> >> more chance to disable it dynamically.
> >>
> >>> of extra_nsize? For example, layout #1 means node_checksum with extra_nsize=X?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> What does 1017 mean? We need to make this structure more flexibly for new
> >>
> >> Yes, using raw 1017 is not appropriate here.
> >>
> >>> entries. Like this?
> >>> union {
> >>> struct node_v1;
> >>> struct node_v2;
> >>> struct node_v3;
> >>> ...
> >>> struct direct_node dn;
> >>> struct indirect_node in;
> >>> };
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> struct node_v1 {
> >>> __le32 data[DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK - V1_NSIZE=1];
> >>> __le32 node_checksum;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> struct node_v2 {
> >>> __le32 data[DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK - V2_NSIZE=500];
> >>
> >> Hmm.. If we only need to add one more 4 bytes field in struct node_v2, but
> >> V2_NSIZE is defined as fixed 500, there must be 492 bytes wasted.
> >>
> >> Or we can define V2_NSIZE as 8, but if there comes more and more extended
> >> fields, node version count can be a large number, it results in complicated
> >> version recognization and handling.
> >>
> >> One more question is how can we control which fields are valid or not in
> >> comp[Vx_NSIZE]?
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyway, what I'm thinking is maybe we can restructure layout of node block like
> >> the one used by f2fs_inode:
> >>
> >> struct f2fs_node {
> >> union {
> >> struct f2fs_inode i;
> >> union {
> >> struct {
> >> __le32 node_checksum;
> >> __le32 feature_field_1;
> >> __le32 feature_field_2;
> >> ....
> >> __le32 addr[];
> >>
> >> };
> >> struct direct_node dn;
> >> struct indirect_node in;
> >> };
> >> };
> >> struct node_footer footer;
> >> } __packed;
> >>
> >> Moving all extended fields to the head of f2fs_node, so we don't have to use
> >> macro to indicate actual size of addr.
> >
> > Thinking what'd be the best way. My concern is, once getting more entries, we
>
> OK, I think we need more discussion.. ;)
>
> > can't set each of features individually. Like the second entry should have
>
> Oh, that will be hard. If we have to avoid that, we have to tag in somewhere
> e.g. f2fs_inode::i_flags2 to indicate which new field in f2fs_node is valid, for
> example:
>
> #define F2FS_NODE_CHECKSUM 0x0001
> #define F2FS_NODE_FIELD1 0x0002
> #define F2FS_NODE_FIELD2 0x0004
>
> union {
> struct {
> __le32 node_checksum;
> __le32 field_1;
> __le32 field_2;
> ....
> __le32 addr[];
> };
> struct direct_node dn;
> struct indirect_node in;
> };
>
> f2fs_inode::i_flags2 = F2FS_NODE_CHECKSUM | F2FS_NODE_FIELD1
> indicates that f2fs_node::node_checksum and f2fs_node::field_1 are valid;
>
> f2fs_inode::i_flags2 = F2FS_NODE_FIELD1 | F2FS_NODE_FIELD2
> indicates that f2fs_node::field_1 and f2fs_node::field_2 are valid.
So, that's why I thought we may need a sort of each formats.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> > enabled node_checksum, which we may not want to do.
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>> __le32 comp[V2_NSIZE];
> >>> }
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + struct direct_node dn;
> >>>> + struct indirect_node in;
> >>>> + };
> >>>> };
> >>>> struct node_footer footer;
> >>>> } __packed;
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.15.0.55.gc2ece9dc4de6
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-10 1:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-27 9:43 [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: enhance scalibility of {d, id, did, x}node disk layout Chao Yu
2018-01-27 9:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: support {d,id,did,x}node checksum Chao Yu
2018-01-31 2:02 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2018-01-31 7:14 ` Chao Yu
2018-01-31 22:15 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2018-02-01 14:20 ` Chao Yu
2018-02-10 1:41 ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2018-02-10 2:52 ` Chao Yu
2018-02-13 7:34 ` Chao Yu
2018-02-27 14:16 ` Chao Yu
2018-02-28 5:34 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2018-02-28 9:46 ` Chao Yu
2018-04-13 8:40 ` Chao Yu
2018-04-17 3:38 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2018-04-17 7:11 ` Chao Yu
2020-02-14 2:32 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180210014140.GB1885@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com \
--to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yuchao0@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).