From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:1514 "EHLO mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752908AbbJAOhL (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:37:11 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V4 02/13] Btrfs: Compute and look up csums based on sectorsized blocks To: Chandan Rajendra , References: <1443608309-30154-1-git-send-email-chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1443608309-30154-3-git-send-email-chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: , , , , From: Josef Bacik Message-ID: <560D44F7.1050905@fb.com> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:36:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1443608309-30154-3-git-send-email-chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/30/2015 06:18 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > Checksums are applicable to sectorsize units. The current code uses > bio->bv_len units to compute and look up checksums. This works on machines > where sectorsize == PAGE_SIZE. This patch makes the checksum computation and > look up code to work with sectorsize units. > > Reviewed-by: Liu Bo > Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra > --- > fs/btrfs/file-item.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file-item.c b/fs/btrfs/file-item.c > index 58ece65..818c859 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/file-item.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/file-item.c > @@ -172,6 +172,7 @@ static int __btrfs_lookup_bio_sums(struct btrfs_root *root, > u64 item_start_offset = 0; > u64 item_last_offset = 0; > u64 disk_bytenr; > + u64 page_bytes_left; > u32 diff; > int nblocks; > int bio_index = 0; > @@ -220,6 +221,8 @@ static int __btrfs_lookup_bio_sums(struct btrfs_root *root, > disk_bytenr = (u64)bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << 9; > if (dio) > offset = logical_offset; > + > + page_bytes_left = bvec->bv_len; > while (bio_index < bio->bi_vcnt) { > if (!dio) > offset = page_offset(bvec->bv_page) + bvec->bv_offset; > @@ -243,7 +246,7 @@ static int __btrfs_lookup_bio_sums(struct btrfs_root *root, > if (BTRFS_I(inode)->root->root_key.objectid == > BTRFS_DATA_RELOC_TREE_OBJECTID) { > set_extent_bits(io_tree, offset, > - offset + bvec->bv_len - 1, > + offset + root->sectorsize - 1, > EXTENT_NODATASUM, GFP_NOFS); > } else { > btrfs_info(BTRFS_I(inode)->root->fs_info, > @@ -281,11 +284,17 @@ static int __btrfs_lookup_bio_sums(struct btrfs_root *root, > found: > csum += count * csum_size; > nblocks -= count; > - bio_index += count; > + > while (count--) { > - disk_bytenr += bvec->bv_len; > - offset += bvec->bv_len; > - bvec++; > + disk_bytenr += root->sectorsize; > + offset += root->sectorsize; > + page_bytes_left -= root->sectorsize; > + if (!page_bytes_left) { > + bio_index++; > + bvec++; > + page_bytes_left = bvec->bv_len; > + } > + I don't understand why this needs to be changed, bv_len is still the amount we're copying, irrespective of the page size. > } > } > btrfs_free_path(path); > @@ -432,6 +441,8 @@ int btrfs_csum_one_bio(struct btrfs_root *root, struct inode *inode, > struct bio_vec *bvec = bio->bi_io_vec; > int bio_index = 0; > int index; > + int nr_sectors; > + int i; > unsigned long total_bytes = 0; > unsigned long this_sum_bytes = 0; > u64 offset; > @@ -451,7 +462,7 @@ int btrfs_csum_one_bio(struct btrfs_root *root, struct inode *inode, > offset = page_offset(bvec->bv_page) + bvec->bv_offset; > > ordered = btrfs_lookup_ordered_extent(inode, offset); > - BUG_ON(!ordered); /* Logic error */ > + ASSERT(ordered); /* Logic error */ Don't worry about converting existing BUG_ON()'s, just don't add new ones. > sums->bytenr = (u64)bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << 9; > index = 0; > > @@ -459,41 +470,55 @@ int btrfs_csum_one_bio(struct btrfs_root *root, struct inode *inode, > if (!contig) > offset = page_offset(bvec->bv_page) + bvec->bv_offset; > > - if (offset >= ordered->file_offset + ordered->len || > - offset < ordered->file_offset) { > - unsigned long bytes_left; > - sums->len = this_sum_bytes; > - this_sum_bytes = 0; > - btrfs_add_ordered_sum(inode, ordered, sums); > - btrfs_put_ordered_extent(ordered); > + data = kmap_atomic(bvec->bv_page); > > - bytes_left = bio->bi_iter.bi_size - total_bytes; > + nr_sectors = (bvec->bv_len + root->sectorsize - 1) > + >> inode->i_blkbits; So I've seen similar sort of math in the previous patch for this as well, lets make this into a helper. > + > + for (i = 0; i < nr_sectors; i++) { > + if (offset >= ordered->file_offset + ordered->len || > + offset < ordered->file_offset) { > + unsigned long bytes_left; > + > + kunmap_atomic(data); > + sums->len = this_sum_bytes; > + this_sum_bytes = 0; > + btrfs_add_ordered_sum(inode, ordered, sums); > + btrfs_put_ordered_extent(ordered); > + > + bytes_left = bio->bi_iter.bi_size - total_bytes; > + > + sums = kzalloc(btrfs_ordered_sum_size(root, bytes_left), > + GFP_NOFS); > + BUG_ON(!sums); /* -ENOMEM */ > + sums->len = bytes_left; > + ordered = btrfs_lookup_ordered_extent(inode, > + offset); > + ASSERT(ordered); /* Logic error */ > + sums->bytenr = ((u64)bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << 9) > + + total_bytes; > + index = 0; > + > + data = kmap_atomic(bvec->bv_page); This will fall through and kzalloc under kmap_atomic which isn't ok. Thanks, Josef