From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tao Ma Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 14:42:19 +0800 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/3] ocfs2: Add ocfs2_trim_fs for SSD trim support. In-Reply-To: <4D75CB69.5080908@oracle.com> References: <4D74AD52.4030502@tao.ma> <1299492356-7329-1-git-send-email-tm@tao.ma> <4D75B6DF.3030508@oracle.com> <4D75C468.8050707@tao.ma> <4D75CB69.5080908@oracle.com> Message-ID: <4D75CFCB.6000501@tao.ma> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On 03/08/2011 02:23 PM, Tristan Ye wrote: > Tao Ma wrote: >> On 03/08/2011 12:55 PM, Tristan Ye wrote: >>> Hi Tao, >>> >>> Most of codes looks pretty neat to me, few comments inlined below: >> Thanks for the review. >>> Tao Ma wrote: >>>> From: Tao Ma >>>> >>>> Add ocfs2_trim_fs to support trimming freed clusters in the >>>> volume. A range will be given and all the freed clusters greater >>>> than minlen will be discarded to the block layer. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tao Ma >>>> --- >>>> fs/ocfs2/alloc.c | 154 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> fs/ocfs2/alloc.h | 1 + >>>> 2 files changed, 155 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c b/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c >>>> index b27a0d8..6e1b3b5 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c >>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c >>>> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> +#include >>>> >>>> #include >>>> >>>> @@ -7184,3 +7185,156 @@ out_commit: >>>> out: >>>> return ret; >>>> } >>>> + >>>> +static int ocfs2_trim_extent(struct super_block *sb, >>>> + struct ocfs2_group_desc *gd, >>>> + int start, int count) >>>> +{ >>>> + u64 discard; >>>> + >>>> + count = ocfs2_clusters_to_blocks(sb, count); >>>> + discard = le64_to_cpu(gd->bg_blkno) + >>>> + ocfs2_clusters_to_blocks(sb, start); >>>> + >>>> + return sb_issue_discard(sb, discard, count, GFP_NOFS, 0); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static int ocfs2_trim_group(struct super_block *sb, >>>> + struct ocfs2_group_desc *gd, >>>> + int start, int max, int minbits) >>>> +{ >>>> + int ret = 0, count = 0, next; >>>> + void *bitmap = gd->bg_bitmap; >>>> + >>>> + while (start < max) { >>>> + start = ocfs2_find_next_zero_bit(bitmap, max, start); >>>> + if (start >= max) >>>> + break; >>> /* What if the 'start' stands within a hole */ >>> >>> if (ocfs2_test_bit(...)) { >>> start = ocfs2_find_next_zero_bit(...); >>> if ((start == -1) || (start >= max)) >>> break; >>> } >>> >>>> + next = ocfs2_find_next_bit(bitmap, max, start); >>> next = ocfs2_find_next_bit(...); >>> if (next == -1) >>> break; >> next will be set to "-1"? sorry, but where do you get it? >>> if (next > max) >>> next = max; >> again, ocfs2_find_next_bit will return a value larger than 'max'? I am >> afraid not. Otherwise, it will be nonsense to pass a 'max' to it. > > > Say we're handling the last group, and the 'start + len' was within a > hole, then the 'max' > is 'first_bit + len', while the next none-zero bit we found may be > larger than 'max', isn't > that possible? ocfs2_find_next_bit(and ext2_find_next_bit) won't parse, check and return 'bit' after 'max'. otherwise there should be a problem of memory overflow(you read and check some memory which isn't owned and handled by you). So the same goes here. If it can return a value larger than 'max', every caller will have to check the overflow. That would be too painful. >>>> +int ocfs2_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct fstrim_range *range) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct ocfs2_super *osb = OCFS2_SB(sb); >>>> + u64 start, len, minlen, trimmed, first_group, last_group, group; >>> why not using u32 start, len, minlen, trimmed; >> we may use 64 bit clusters later I guess. And what's more, they will be >> set by the user later. and it may overflow. Say the user pass a u64 >> range->len, it will overflow with range->len >> osb->s_clustersize_bits. > > I just found we were using u32 for counting clusters all around ocfs2 > codes, e.g truncate/punching_hole > codes, also passing an u64 byte_offset from userspace, so my original > intention is to keep an unification;-) > > Overflow can theoretically happen anyway, however, it's not very likely > to pass a 16TB+ byte_offset from userspace. I am afraid it is very likely. So say you want to trim all the clusters within the volume, how could you set 'range->len'? Will you first fdisk to get the volume size and then set it accordingly? Most guys will set it to ULLONG_MAX and let the file system handles it. This is not my personal view, please check this article: http://lwn.net/Articles/417809/ Jonathan also suggests to set len to ULLONG_MAX so that you can trim the whole volume. Regards, Tao