From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
To: quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com
Cc: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] btrfs: replace btrfs_io_context::raid_map[] with a fixed u64 value
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:14:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVwXB4YsCFEpLoTm8pxyjMty6tAT7joNj2EME4ynY8keQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e567a113-1cbd-134b-6db0-82433eca6685@gmx.com>
Hi Qu,
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 12:50 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 2023/2/20 16:53, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> In btrfs_io_context structure, we have a pointer raid_map, which is to
> >> indicate the logical bytenr for each stripe.
> >>
> >> But considering we always call sort_parity_stripes(), the result
> >> raid_map[] is always sorted, thus raid_map[0] is always the logical
> >> bytenr of the full stripe.
> >>
> >> So why we waste the space and time (for sorting) for raid_map[]?
> >>
> >> This patch will replace btrfs_io_context::raid_map with a single u64
> >> number, full_stripe_start, by:
> >>
> >> - Replace btrfs_io_context::raid_map with full_stripe_start
> >>
> >> - Replace call sites using raid_map[0] to use full_stripe_start
> >>
> >> - Replace call sites using raid_map[i] to compare with nr_data_stripes.
> >>
> >> The benefits are:
> >>
> >> - Less memory wasted on raid_map
> >> It's sizeof(u64) * num_stripes vs size(u64).
> >> It's always a save for at least one u64, and the benefit grows larger
> >> with num_stripes.
> >>
> >> - No more weird alloc_btrfs_io_context() behavior
> >> As there is only one fixed size + one variable length array.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> >
> > Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 4a8c6e8a6dc8ae4c ("btrfs:
> > replace btrfs_io_context::raid_map with a fixed u64 value") in
> > next-20230220.
> >
> > noreply@ellerman.id.au reported several build failures when
> > building for 32-bit platforms:
> >
> > ERROR: modpost: "__umoddi3" [fs/btrfs/btrfs.ko] undefined!
> >
> >> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> >> @@ -6556,35 +6532,44 @@ int __btrfs_map_block(struct btrfs_fs_info
> >> *fs_info, enum btrfs_map_op op,
> >> }
> >> bioc->map_type = map->type;
> >>
> >> - for (i = 0; i < num_stripes; i++) {
> >> - set_io_stripe(&bioc->stripes[i], map, stripe_index,
> >> stripe_offset,
> >> - stripe_nr);
> >> - stripe_index++;
> >> - }
> >> -
> >> - /* Build raid_map */
> >> + /*
> >> + * For RAID56 full map, we need to make sure the stripes[] follows
> >> + * the rule that data stripes are all ordered, then followed with P
> >> + * and Q (if we have).
> >> + *
> >> + * It's still mostly the same as other profiles, just with extra
> >> + * rotataion.
> >> + */
> >> if (map->type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID56_MASK && need_raid_map &&
> >> (need_full_stripe(op) || mirror_num > 1)) {
> >> - u64 tmp;
> >> - unsigned rot;
> >> -
> >> - /* Work out the disk rotation on this stripe-set */
> >> - rot = stripe_nr % num_stripes;
> >> -
> >> - /* Fill in the logical address of each stripe */
> >> - tmp = stripe_nr * data_stripes;
> >> - for (i = 0; i < data_stripes; i++)
> >> - bioc->raid_map[(i + rot) % num_stripes] =
> >> - em->start + ((tmp + i) << BTRFS_STRIPE_LEN_SHIFT);
> >> -
> >> - bioc->raid_map[(i + rot) % map->num_stripes] = RAID5_P_STRIPE;
> >> - if (map->type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID6)
> >> - bioc->raid_map[(i + rot + 1) % num_stripes] =
> >> - RAID6_Q_STRIPE;
> >> -
> >> - sort_parity_stripes(bioc, num_stripes);
> >> + /*
> >> + * For RAID56 @stripe_nr is already the number of full stripes
> >> + * before us, which is also the rotation value (needs to modulo
> >> + * with num_stripes).
> >> + *
> >> + * In this case, we just add @stripe_nr with @i, then do the
> >> + * modulo, to reduce one modulo call.
> >> + */
> >> + bioc->full_stripe_logical = em->start +
> >> + ((stripe_nr * data_stripes) << BTRFS_STRIPE_LEN_SHIFT);
> >> + for (i = 0; i < num_stripes; i++) {
> >> + set_io_stripe(&bioc->stripes[i], map,
> >> + (i + stripe_nr) % num_stripes,
> >
> > As stripe_nr is u64, this is a 64-by-32 modulo operation, which
> > should be implemented using a helper from include/linux/math64.h
> > instead.
>
> This is an older version, in the latest version, the @stripe_nr variable
> is also u32, and I tried compiling the latest branch with i686, it
> doesn't cause any u64 division problems anymore.
>
> You can find the latest branch in either github or from the mailling list:
>
> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/map_block_refactor
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cover.1676611535.git.wqu@suse.com/
So the older version was "v2", and the latest version had no
version indicator, nor changelog, thus assuming v1?
No surprise people end up applying the wrong version...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-20 12:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1675743217.git.wqu@suse.com>
[not found] ` <f82eed6746d19cf3bea15631a120648eadf20852.1675743217.git.wqu@suse.com>
2023-02-20 8:53 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] btrfs: replace btrfs_io_context::raid_map[] with a fixed u64 value Geert Uytterhoeven
2023-02-20 11:50 ` Qu Wenruo
2023-02-20 12:14 ` Geert Uytterhoeven [this message]
2023-02-21 0:09 ` Qu Wenruo
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=CAMuHMdVwXB4YsCFEpLoTm8pxyjMty6tAT7joNj2EME4ynY8keQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
--cc=wqu@suse.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).