From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.5]:58617 "EHLO e28smtp05.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750730AbbJBMU1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:20:27 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp05.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:24 +0530 Received: from d28relay05.in.ibm.com (d28relay05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.62]) by d28dlp03.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F287B125801D for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:49:58 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67]) by d28relay05.in.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t92CKK4n45547570 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:20 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t92CKIJ3026816 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:19 +0530 From: Chandan Rajendra To: Josef Bacik Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, clm@fb.com, bo.li.liu@oracle.com, dsterba@suse.cz, quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com, chandan@mykolab.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 02/13] Btrfs: Compute and look up csums based on sectorsized blocks Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:50:16 +0530 Message-ID: <6506408.mhIJzHGTWO@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <560D45A1.9020804@fb.com> References: <1443608912-31667-1-git-send-email-chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1443608912-31667-3-git-send-email-chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <560D45A1.9020804@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 01 Oct 2015 10:39:29 Josef Bacik wrote: > On 09/30/2015 06:28 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. Josef, assume bvec[0] has 2 blocks worth of data and bvec[1] has 4 blocks of worth of data. For the first iteration of the loop, assume that btrfs_find_ordered_sum() returned 4 csums i.e. csums associated with first 4 blocks of the bio. In such a scenario, the first of the several csums returned during the second iteration of the loop applies to the the 3rd block mapped by bvec[1]. Knowing this wouldn't be possible by only using bvec->bv_len. Hence page_bytes_left helps us figure out the block inside a bvec for which the first of the new set of csums found applies and also to decide whether to move to the next bvec or not. > > > > } > > > > } > > 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. Ok. > > 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. I agree. I will add a helper function to do that and invoke it in appropriate place. > > + 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); > > + } > > > > - 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); > > - BUG_ON(!ordered); /* Logic error */ > > - sums->bytenr = ((u64)bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << 9) + > > - total_bytes; > > - index = 0; > > + sums->sums[index] = ~(u32)0; > > + sums->sums[index] > > + = btrfs_csum_data(data + bvec->bv_offset > > + + (i * root->sectorsize), > > + sums->sums[index], > > + root->sectorsize); > > + btrfs_csum_final(sums->sums[index], > > + (char *)(sums->sums + index)); > > + index++; > > + offset += root->sectorsize; > > + this_sum_bytes += root->sectorsize; > > + total_bytes += root->sectorsize; > > > > } > > What I said about this area in the other email I sent just ignore, I > misread the patch. The other stuff is still valid tho. Thanks, > > Josef -- chandan