Re: [RFC 1/2] IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE Cleanup

[Joshua Lock <josh@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 11:28 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 11:04 AM, Joshua Lock wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 23:38 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
> >> This basic cleanup removes the _ext2/3 overrides from places they
> >> no longer belong since they did not allow further overrides. In doing
> >> this the core-image-minimal* recipes can now set a reasonably small
> >> rootfs so that it's a realistic size for minimal.
> >
> > Awesome. Thanks for tackling this!
> >
> > Few questions below.
> >
> >>
> >> The new default for minimal is 8M and will be adujsted upward by the
> >> IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR (of 1.2).
> >>
> >> This fixes the ROOTFS_SIZE usage in the IMAGE_CMD_<fstype>  code
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Saul Wold<sgw@linux.intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>   meta/classes/image_types.bbclass                   |    7 +++++--
> >>   meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc    |    2 --
> >>   meta/conf/machine/include/qemu.inc                 |    2 --
> >>   .../images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb         |    2 ++
> >>   meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb     |    2 ++
> >>   5 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass
> >> index ec0cafd..69f859e 100644
> >> --- a/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass
> >> +++ b/meta/classes/image_types.bbclass
> >> @@ -21,22 +21,25 @@ runimagecmd () {
> >>   }
> >>
> >>   IMAGE_CMD_jffs2 = "mkfs.jffs2 --root=${IMAGE_ROOTFS} --faketime --output=${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.jffs2 ${EXTRA_IMAGECMD}"
> >> +
> >>   IMAGE_CMD_cramfs = "mkcramfs ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.cramfs ${EXTRA_IMAGECMD}"
> >> +
> >>   IMAGE_CMD_ext2 = "genext2fs -b $ROOTFS_SIZE -d ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} ${EXTRA_IMAGECMD} ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext2"
> >>   IMAGE_CMD_ext2.gz () {
> >>   	rm -rf ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz&&  mkdir ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz
> >> -	genext2fs -b ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE} -d ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} ${EXTRA_IMAGECMD} ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext2
> >> +	genext2fs -b $ROOTFS_SIZE -d ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} ${EXTRA_IMAGECMD} ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext2
> >>   	gzip -f -9 ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext2
> >>   	mv ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext2.gz ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext2.gz
> >>   	rmdir ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz
> >>   }
> >> +
> >>   IMAGE_CMD_ext3 () {
> >>   	genext2fs -b $ROOTFS_SIZE -d ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} ${EXTRA_IMAGECMD} ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext3
> >>   	tune2fs -j ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext3
> >>   }
> >>   IMAGE_CMD_ext3.gz () {
> >>   	rm -rf ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz&&  mkdir ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz
> >> -	genext2fs -b ${IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE} -d ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} ${EXTRA_IMAGECMD} ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext3
> >> +	genext2fs -b $ROOTFS_SIZE -d ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} ${EXTRA_IMAGECMD} ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext3
> >>   	tune2fs -j ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext3
> >>   	gzip -f -9 ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext3
> >>   	mv ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/tmp.gz/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext3.gz ${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${IMAGE_NAME}.rootfs.ext3.gz
> >> diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
> >> index 1aa45c8..4b68a0a 100644
> >> --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
> >> +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/default-distrovars.inc
> >> @@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
> >>   QA_LOGFILE = "${TMPDIR}/qa.log"
> >>
> >> -IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE_ext2 ?= "131072"
> >> -
> >>   OEINCLUDELOGS ?= "yes"
> >>   KERNEL_CONSOLE ?= "ttyS0"
> >>
> >> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/qemu.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/qemu.inc
> >> index 4122a88..9ef242f 100644
> >> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/qemu.inc
> >> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/qemu.inc
> >> @@ -6,8 +6,6 @@ MACHINE_FEATURES = "kernel26 apm alsa pcmcia bluetooth irda usbgadget screen"
> >>   IMAGE_FSTYPES ?= "tar.bz2 ext3"
> >>
> >>   ROOT_FLASH_SIZE = "280"
> >> -IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE_ext2 ?= "280000"
> >> -IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE_ext3 ?= "280000"
> >>
> >>   # Don't include kernels in standard images
> >>   RDEPENDS_kernel-base = ""
> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> >> index 21aaa6c..3246d5c 100644
> >> --- a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> >> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb
> >> @@ -8,3 +8,5 @@ IMAGE_LINGUAS = ""
> >>   LICENSE = "MIT"
> >>
> >>   inherit core-image
> >> +
> >> +IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE = "8192"
> >
> > I'm not really sure about this, an initramfs that's the same size as a
> > more fully featured rootfs?
> >
> That may be, then we need to increase the size slightly, but this will 
> trigger the correct behavior of actual size * IMAGE_OVERHEAD_FACTOR, 
> rather than the 64M which would be the default, this was to ensure it 
> could get smaller.  I don't have a current initramfs size, I will build 
> and verify.
> 
> 
> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb
> >> index aa00e67..743e121 100644
> >> --- a/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb
> >> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb
> >> @@ -9,5 +9,7 @@ LICENSE = "MIT"
> >>
> >>   inherit core-image
> >>
> >> +IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE = "8192"
> >> +
> >
> > In your cover letter you stated that the minimal image is currently
> > 9.9M, which means we *need* the overhead to contain the entire image
> > contents. Correct? That seems a little unwise.
> >
> Right, that's currently, we want to see the image get smaller even, so 
> the 8M is an appropriate setting.  Currently the actual ext3 image is 
> 13M with 10M of contents.
> 
> So are you suggested that the 8M size is unwise or the overhead, not 
> sure I am catching your meaning here.

I'm just nervous about relying on the overhead, what if someone sets it
lower and then the image doesn't fit?

Having the goal of a smaller minimal image is good but in my opinion we
should adjust the rootfs size when the image is smaller, not before.

Cheers,
Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Project Build Monkey
        Intel Open Source Technology Centre