Re: [PATCH v3 04/18] xfs: introduce inode record hole mask for sparse inode chunks

Brian Foster
2015-02-08T16:06:09Z

On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 10:16:15AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 02:52:51PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > The inode btrees track 64 inodes per record, regardless of inode size.
> > Thus, inode chunks on disk vary in size depending on the size of the
> > inodes. This creates a contiguous allocation requirement for new inode
> > chunks that can be difficult to satisfy on an aged and fragmented (free
> > space) filesystem.
> >
> > The inode record freecount currently uses 4 bytes on disk to track the
> > free inode count. With a maximum freecount value of 64, only one byte is
> > required. Convert the freecount field to a single byte and use two of
> > the remaining 3 higher order bytes left for the hole mask field. Use
> > the final leftover byte for the total count field.
> >
> > The hole mask field tracks holes in the chunks of physical space that
> > the inode record refers to. This facilitates the sparse allocation of
> > inode chunks when contiguous chunks are not available and allows the
> > inode btrees to identify what portions of the chunk contain valid
> > inodes. The total count field contains the total number of valid inodes
> > referred to by the record. This can also be deduced from the hole mask.
> > The count field provides clarity and redundancy for internal record
> > verification.
> >
> > Note that both fields are initialized to zero to maintain backwards
> > compatibility with existing filesystems (e.g., the higher order bytes of
> > freecount are always 0). Tracking holes means that the hole mask is
> > initialized to zero and thus remains "valid" in accordance with a
> > non-sparse inode fs when no sparse chunks are physically allocated.
> > Update the inode record management functions to handle the new fields
> > and initialize to zero.
> >
> > [XXX: The count field breaks backwards compatibility with !sparseinode
> > fs. Should we reconsider the addition of total count or the idea of
> > converting back and forth between sparse inode fs with a feature bit?]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h | 8 ++++++--
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c | 4 +++-
> > 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
> > index 26e5d92..6c2f1be 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
> > @@ -1295,13 +1295,17 @@ static inline xfs_inofree_t xfs_inobt_maskn(int i, int n)
> > */
> > typedef struct xfs_inobt_rec {
> > __be32 ir_startino; /* starting inode number */
> > - __be32 ir_freecount; /* count of free inodes (set bits) */
> > + __be16 ir_holemask; /* hole mask for sparse chunks */
> > + __u8 ir_count; /* total inode count */
> > + __u8 ir_freecount; /* count of free inodes (set bits) */
> > __be64 ir_free; /* free inode mask */
> > } xfs_inobt_rec_t;
>
> I think I'd prefer to see a union here so that we explicitly state
> what the difference in the on-disk format is. i.e. similar to how we
> express the difference in long and short btree block headers.
>
> struct xfs_inobt_rec {
> __be32 ir_startino; /* starting inode number */
> __be32 ir_freecount; /* count of free inodes (set bits) */
> union {
> struct {
> __be32 ir_freecount;
> } f;
> struct {
> __be16 ir_holemask; /* hole mask for sparse chunks */
> __u8 ir_count; /* total inode count */
> __u8 ir_freecount; /* count of free inodes (set bits) */
> } sp;
> }
> __be64 ir_free; /* free inode mask */
> };
>
> This will prevent us from using the wrong method of
> referencing/modifying the record because we now need to be explicit
> in how we modify it...
>

I agree in principle. This is definitely explicit in that there are two
variants of this structure that must be handled in a particular way.
That said, 'sparse' and 'full' aren't quite logical differentiators
given that we now have the ir_count field and that it is used whenever
sparse inode support is enabled. In other words, a sparse enabled fs'
always uses the 'sp' variant of the inobt record, regardless of whether
the record happens to sparse.

Ultimately, I think the benefit of doing something like this depends on
its utility...

> > typedef struct xfs_inobt_rec_incore {
> > xfs_agino_t ir_startino; /* starting inode number */
> > - __int32_t ir_freecount; /* count of free inodes (set bits) */
> > + __uint16_t ir_holemask; /* hole mask for sparse chunks */
> > + __uint8_t ir_count; /* total inode count */
> > + __uint8_t ir_freecount; /* count of free inodes (set bits) */
> > xfs_inofree_t ir_free; /* free inode mask */
> > } xfs_inobt_rec_incore_t;
>
> Though this is still fine - it doesn't need to explicitly follow the
> on-disk format structure, but it would be nice to be explicit on
> conversion to disk format records what we are actually using from
> this record.
>

Ok.

> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c
> > index 6f2153e..32fdb7c 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c
> > @@ -65,6 +65,8 @@ xfs_inobt_lookup(
> > int *stat) /* success/failure */
> > {
> > cur->bc_rec.i.ir_startino = ino;
> > + cur->bc_rec.i.ir_holemask = 0;
> > + cur->bc_rec.i.ir_count = 0;
> > cur->bc_rec.i.ir_freecount = 0;
> > cur->bc_rec.i.ir_free = 0;
> > return xfs_btree_lookup(cur, dir, stat);
> > @@ -82,7 +84,9 @@ xfs_inobt_update(
> > union xfs_btree_rec rec;
> >
> > rec.inobt.ir_startino = cpu_to_be32(irec->ir_startino);
> > - rec.inobt.ir_freecount = cpu_to_be32(irec->ir_freecount);
> > + rec.inobt.ir_holemask = cpu_to_be16(irec->ir_holemask);
> > + rec.inobt.ir_count = irec->ir_count;
> > + rec.inobt.ir_freecount = irec->ir_freecount;
> > rec.inobt.ir_free = cpu_to_be64(irec->ir_free);
> > return xfs_btree_update(cur, &rec);
> > }
>
> Hmmm - perhaps a similar set of helpers for sparse inode enabled
> filesystems
>

We could do that for the insert/update helpers, but note again the
separate helpers would not split along the lines of sparse vs full
chunks. Even if we were to change the design such that they do, that
would have th effect of complicating some of the subsequent code. For
example, the merge/update code currently has no reason to care about
whether it has created a full chunk out of multiple sparse chunks. This
would require more code to make that distinction simply to pick the
correct api, for something that can easily be done with a simple generic
helper. The same goes for things like the finobt, where now
lookup/update/insert has to make distinctions depending on the type of
inode record.

An alternate approach could be to stick with the generic helpers, but
try and tweak them to use the appropriate on-disk format depending on
the record. Then again, how can one really identify one from the other
in the lookup or _get_rec() scenarios?

> > @@ -118,6 +124,8 @@ xfs_inobt_insert_rec(
> > xfs_inofree_t free,
> > int *stat)
> > {
> > + cur->bc_rec.i.ir_holemask = 0;
> > + cur->bc_rec.i.ir_count = 0; /* zero for backwards compatibility */
> > cur->bc_rec.i.ir_freecount = freecount;
> > cur->bc_rec.i.ir_free = free;
> > return xfs_btree_insert(cur, stat);
>
> That would make this sort of thing very clear - this doesn't look
> like it would work for a sparse chunk record...
>

Right... but this is just a plumbing patch and effectively a placeholder
for the subsequent patches that implement the mechanism. I suppose the
api could have been pulled back sooner into this patch, but I'd rather
not reshuffle things just for that intermediate state. That context
probably wasn't quite clear to me at the time.

Before I go one way or another here with regard to the on-disk data
structure, care to take a look at the subsequent patch(es) that use
these helpers? Patch 10 in particular pretty much sums up how these
helpers are used for sparse inode record management.

FWIW, comments on the generic bitmap stuff is also appreciated as that's
another area I'm not totally convinved is done right. :)

Brian

> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com