linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-24 11:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ 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 10:29 ` Chao Yu
2017-02-24 11:11   ` Yunlong Song [this message]
2017-02-24 11:37     ` Chao Yu
2017-02-24 11:57       ` Yunlong Song
2017-02-24 18:12         ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-02-25  0:54           ` Chao Yu
2017-02-25  8:10           ` Yunlong Song
2017-02-25  8:01 ` [PATCH v2] " 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 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).