From: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>,
jaegeuk@kernel.org, cm224.lee@samsung.com, chao@kernel.org,
sylinux@163.com, miaoxie@huawei.com
Cc: bintian.wang@huawei.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: change the codes of checking CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG to macro
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:11:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <58B014FC.6090308@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <096f8d0b-774c-2065-db96-dde455a4ec53@huawei.com>
I think we do not need to care about the CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG status of old image, I mean we
do not need to check the already-been-written node footer in the image, what we care about is the
on-going-to-write node footer, which is used for recovery.
If CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG is defined, then __set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG); is
executed in each do_checkpoint actually, and CP will have that flag for each on-going-to-write node footer.
I think the recovery process only needs to use the on-going-to-write node rather than the already-been-written
node in the old image. The already-been-written node in the old image should not appear in the node
chain of recovery process, right?
On 2017/2/24 18:29, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/2/24 18:06, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> No need to check the "if" condition each time, just change it to macro codes.
> We're going to check flag in CP, not just in code of f2fs.
>
> Thanks,
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> fs/f2fs/node.h | 20 ++++++++++----------
>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 5 +++--
>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.h b/fs/f2fs/node.h
>> index 3fc9c4b..3e5a58b 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.h
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.h
>> @@ -303,11 +303,11 @@ static inline void fill_node_footer_blkaddr(struct page *page, block_t blkaddr)
>> size_t crc_offset = le32_to_cpu(ckpt->checksum_offset);
>> __u64 cp_ver = le64_to_cpu(ckpt->checkpoint_ver);
>>
>> - if (__is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG)) {
>> - __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> - ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> - cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> - }
>> +#ifdef CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG
>> + __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> + ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> + cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> +#endif
>> rn->footer.cp_ver = cpu_to_le64(cp_ver);
>> rn->footer.next_blkaddr = cpu_to_le32(blkaddr);
>> }
>> @@ -318,11 +318,11 @@ static inline bool is_recoverable_dnode(struct page *page)
>> size_t crc_offset = le32_to_cpu(ckpt->checksum_offset);
>> __u64 cp_ver = cur_cp_version(ckpt);
>>
>> - if (__is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG)) {
>> - __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> - ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> - cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> - }
>> +#ifdef CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG
>> + __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> + ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> + cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> +#endif
>> return cp_ver == cpver_of_node(page);
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> index 9eb6d89..6c2e1ee 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> @@ -1573,9 +1573,10 @@ static void allocate_segment_by_default(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> {
>> if (force)
>> new_curseg(sbi, type, true);
>> - else if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG) &&
>> - type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE)
>> +#ifndef CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG
>> + else if (type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE)
>> new_curseg(sbi, type, false);
>> +#endif
>> else if (need_SSR(sbi) && get_ssr_segment(sbi, type))
>> change_curseg(sbi, type, true);
>> else
>>
>
> .
>
--
Thanks,
Yunlong Song
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>, <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
<cm224.lee@samsung.com>, <chao@kernel.org>, <sylinux@163.com>,
<miaoxie@huawei.com>
Cc: <bintian.wang@huawei.com>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: change the codes of checking CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG to macro
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:11:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <58B014FC.6090308@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <096f8d0b-774c-2065-db96-dde455a4ec53@huawei.com>
I think we do not need to care about the CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG status of old image, I mean we
do not need to check the already-been-written node footer in the image, what we care about is the
on-going-to-write node footer, which is used for recovery.
If CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG is defined, then __set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG); is
executed in each do_checkpoint actually, and CP will have that flag for each on-going-to-write node footer.
I think the recovery process only needs to use the on-going-to-write node rather than the already-been-written
node in the old image. The already-been-written node in the old image should not appear in the node
chain of recovery process, right?
On 2017/2/24 18:29, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/2/24 18:06, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> No need to check the "if" condition each time, just change it to macro codes.
> We're going to check flag in CP, not just in code of f2fs.
>
> Thanks,
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> fs/f2fs/node.h | 20 ++++++++++----------
>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 5 +++--
>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.h b/fs/f2fs/node.h
>> index 3fc9c4b..3e5a58b 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.h
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.h
>> @@ -303,11 +303,11 @@ static inline void fill_node_footer_blkaddr(struct page *page, block_t blkaddr)
>> size_t crc_offset = le32_to_cpu(ckpt->checksum_offset);
>> __u64 cp_ver = le64_to_cpu(ckpt->checkpoint_ver);
>>
>> - if (__is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG)) {
>> - __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> - ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> - cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> - }
>> +#ifdef CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG
>> + __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> + ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> + cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> +#endif
>> rn->footer.cp_ver = cpu_to_le64(cp_ver);
>> rn->footer.next_blkaddr = cpu_to_le32(blkaddr);
>> }
>> @@ -318,11 +318,11 @@ static inline bool is_recoverable_dnode(struct page *page)
>> size_t crc_offset = le32_to_cpu(ckpt->checksum_offset);
>> __u64 cp_ver = cur_cp_version(ckpt);
>>
>> - if (__is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG)) {
>> - __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> - ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> - cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> - }
>> +#ifdef CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG
>> + __u64 crc = le32_to_cpu(*((__le32 *)
>> + ((unsigned char *)ckpt + crc_offset)));
>> + cp_ver |= (crc << 32);
>> +#endif
>> return cp_ver == cpver_of_node(page);
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> index 9eb6d89..6c2e1ee 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> @@ -1573,9 +1573,10 @@ static void allocate_segment_by_default(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> {
>> if (force)
>> new_curseg(sbi, type, true);
>> - else if (!is_set_ckpt_flags(sbi, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG) &&
>> - type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE)
>> +#ifndef CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG
>> + else if (type == CURSEG_WARM_NODE)
>> new_curseg(sbi, type, false);
>> +#endif
>> else if (need_SSR(sbi) && get_ssr_segment(sbi, type))
>> change_curseg(sbi, type, true);
>> else
>>
>
> .
>
--
Thanks,
Yunlong Song
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-24 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-24 10:06 [PATCH] f2fs: change the codes of checking CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG to macro Yunlong Song
2017-02-24 10:06 ` Yunlong Song
2017-02-24 10:29 ` Chao Yu
2017-02-24 10:29 ` Chao Yu
2017-02-24 11:11 ` Yunlong Song [this message]
2017-02-24 11:11 ` Yunlong Song
2017-02-24 11:37 ` Chao Yu
2017-02-24 11:37 ` Chao Yu
2017-02-24 11:57 ` Yunlong Song
2017-02-24 11:57 ` Yunlong Song
2017-02-24 18:12 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-02-25 0:54 ` Chao Yu
2017-02-25 0:54 ` Chao Yu
2017-02-25 8:10 ` Yunlong Song
2017-02-25 8:10 ` Yunlong Song
2017-02-25 8:01 ` [PATCH v2] " Yunlong Song
2017-02-25 8:01 ` Yunlong Song
2017-02-25 18:46 ` Jaegeuk Kim
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=58B014FC.6090308@huawei.com \
--to=yunlong.song@huawei.com \
--cc=bintian.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=cm224.lee@samsung.com \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miaoxie@huawei.com \
--cc=sylinux@163.com \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.