linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Patrick J. LoPresti"
	<lopresti@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/3] ext3/ext4: Factor out disk addressability check
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:19:36 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C6821A8.5080805@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100813163006.GB4329@quack.suse.cz>

Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 12-08-10 15:29:49, Joel Becker wrote:
>> diff --git a/fs/libfs.c b/fs/libfs.c
>> index dcaf972..f099566 100644
>> --- a/fs/libfs.c
>> +++ b/fs/libfs.c
>> @@ -955,6 +955,35 @@ int generic_file_fsync(struct file *file, int datasync)
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(generic_file_fsync);
>>  
>> +/**
>> + * generic_check_addressable - Check addressability of file system
>> + * @blocksize_bits:	log of file system block size
>> + * @num_blocks:		number of blocks in file system
>> + *
>> + * Determine whether a file system with @num_blocks blocks (and a
>> + * block size of 2**@blocksize_bits) is addressable by the sector_t
>> + * and page cache of the system.  Return 0 if so and -EFBIG otherwise.
>> + */
>> +int generic_check_addressable(unsigned blocksize_bits, u64 num_blocks)
>> +{
>> +	u64 last_fs_block = num_blocks - 1;
>> +
>> +	if (unlikely(num_blocks == 0))
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	if ((blocksize_bits < 9) || (blocksize_bits > PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT))
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	if ((last_fs_block >
>> +	     (sector_t)(~0ULL) >> (blocksize_bits - 9)) ||
>> +	    (last_fs_block >
>> +	     (pgoff_t)(~0ULL) >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits))) {
>             ^^^ I don't get the pgoff_t check. Shouldn't it rather be
> (u64)(pgoff_t)(~0ULL) << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits)?

Argh that was my fault...  Thankfully not too many 1k-blocksize-formatted
16T devices out there, I guess.

I went through the math again and also came up with:

total fs pages is blocks / (blocks per page)
total pages is blocks / (1 << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT / 1 << blocksize_bits)
total pages is blocks / (1 << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits))
total pages is blocks * (1 >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits))
total pages is blocks >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits)

too big if total pages is > (pgoff_t)(~0ULL)
too big if blocks >> (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits) > (pgoff_t)(~0ULL)
too big if blocks > (pgoff_t)(~0ULL) << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits)
and to not overflow:
too big if blocks > (u64)(pgoff_t)(~0ULL) << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits)

so seems like the test is:

last_fs_block > (u64)(pgoff_t)(~0ULL) << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits)

Given the density of the logic in the helper it seems like maybe breaking it
up and adding specific comments might be helpful to the reader:

	/* can IO layers fit total fs sectors in a sector_t? */
	if (last_fs_block >
	    (sector_t)(~0ULL) >> (blocksize_bits - 9))
		return -EFBIG;

	/* can page cache fit total fs pages in a pgoff_t? */
	if (last_fs_block >
	    (u64)(pgoff_t)(~0ULL) << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - blocksize_bits)
		return -EFBIG;

Or something like that.

Sorry for chiming in late...

-Eric

> Because on 32-bit arch we are able to address 16TB device, which is for 1KB
> blocksize 1<<34 blocks. But your math gives 1<<30 blocks...
> 
> 									Honza
> 


  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-08-15 17:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-07-22 22:03 [PATCH 1/3] ext3/ext4: Factor out disk addressability check Patrick J. LoPresti
2010-07-22 22:04 ` [PATCH 2/3] JBD2: Allow feature checks before journal recovery Patrick J. LoPresti
2010-07-22 22:05   ` [PATCH 3/3] OCFS2: Allow huge (> 16 TiB) volumes to mount Patrick J. LoPresti
2010-08-12 17:43   ` [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] JBD2: Allow feature checks before journal recovery Joel Becker
2010-08-12 23:03     ` Joel Becker
2010-08-13  3:39     ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Ted Ts'o
2010-08-13  7:17       ` Joel Becker
2010-08-10 15:15 ` [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/3] ext3/ext4: Factor out disk addressability check Joel Becker
2010-08-12 17:42 ` Joel Becker
2010-08-12 18:45   ` Andreas Dilger
2010-08-12 20:15     ` Joel Becker
2010-08-12 21:32       ` Andreas Dilger
2010-08-12 22:29         ` Joel Becker
2010-08-12 23:07           ` Andreas Dilger
2010-08-12 23:13             ` Joel Becker
2010-08-13 16:30           ` Jan Kara
2010-08-13 20:47             ` Joel Becker
2010-08-13 22:52               ` Joel Becker
2010-08-16 15:09                 ` Jan Kara
2010-08-15 17:19             ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2010-08-16  2:54               ` Joel Becker
2010-08-16  3:36                 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Eric Sandeen
2010-08-16  9:21                   ` Joel Becker
2010-08-16 14:44                     ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Eric Sandeen
2010-08-16 19:13                       ` Joel Becker
2010-08-16 19:21                         ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-08-16 20:45                           ` Joel Becker
2010-08-12 23:03   ` Joel Becker
2010-08-13  3:39   ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Ted Ts'o

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=4C6821A8.5080805@redhat.com \
    --to=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=Joel.Becker@oracle.com \
    --cc=adilger@dilger.ca \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lopresti@gmail.com \
    --cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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).