Re: [PATCH] btrfs: remove some duplicated checks in btrfs_previous_*_item()

[Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:14:11PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> In btrfs_previous_item() and btrfs_previous_extent_item() we check
> btrfs_header_nritems() in a loop.
> 
> But in fact we don't need to do it in a loop at all.
> 
> Firstly, if a tree block is empty, the whole tree is empty and nodes[0]
> is the tree root.
> We don't need to do anything and can exit immediately.
> 
> Secondly, the only timing we could get a slots[0] >= nritems is when the
> function get called. After the first slots[0]--, the slot should always
> be <= nritems.
> 
> So this patch will move all the nritems related checks out of the loop
> by:
> 
> - Check nritems of nodes[0] to do a quick exit
> 
> - Sanitize path->slots[0] before entering the loop
>   I doubt if there is any caller setting path->slots[0] beyond
>   nritems + 1 (setting to nritems is possible when item is not found).
>   Sanitize path->slots[0] to nritems won't hurt anyway.
> 
> - Unconditionally reduce path->slots[0]
>   Since we're sure all tree blocks should not be empty, and
>   btrfs_prev_leaf() will return with path->slots[0] == nritems, we
>   can safely reduce slots[0] unconditionally.
>   Just keep an extra ASSERT() to make sure no tree block is empty.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
> index 781537692a4a..555345aed84d 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
> @@ -4704,23 +4704,39 @@ int btrfs_previous_item(struct btrfs_root *root,
>  {
>  	struct btrfs_key found_key;
>  	struct extent_buffer *leaf;
> -	u32 nritems;
> +	const u32 nritems = btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0]);
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Check nritems first, if the tree is empty we exit immediately.
> +	 * And if this leave is not empty, none of the tree blocks of this root
> +	 * should be empty.
> +	 */
> +	if (nritems == 0)
> +		return 1;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If we're several slots beyond nritems, we reset slot to nritems,
> +	 * and it will be handled properly inside the loop.
> +	 */
> +	if (unlikely(path->slots[0] > nritems))
> +		path->slots[0] = nritems;
> +
>  	while (1) {
>  		if (path->slots[0] == 0) {
>  			ret = btrfs_prev_leaf(root, path);
>  			if (ret != 0)
>  				return ret;
> -		} else {
> -			path->slots[0]--;
>  		}
>  		leaf = path->nodes[0];
> -		nritems = btrfs_header_nritems(leaf);
> -		if (nritems == 0)
> -			return 1;
> -		if (path->slots[0] == nritems)
> -			path->slots[0]--;
> +		ASSERT(btrfs_header_nritems(leaf));
> +		/*
> +		 * This is for both regular case and above btrfs_prev_leaf() case.
> +		 * As btrfs_prev_leaf() will return with path->slots[0] == nritems,
> +		 * and we're sure no tree block is empty, we can go safely
> +		 * reduce slots[0] here.
> +		 */
> +		path->slots[0]--;

This requires trusting that the thing on disk was ok.  The tree-checker won't
complain if we read a block with nritems == 0.  I think it would be better to do

	if (btrfs_header_nritems(leaf) == 0) {
		ASSERT(btrfs_header_nritems(leaf));
		return -EUCLEAN;
	}

so we don't get ourselves in trouble.  Thanks,

Josef