| Message ID | 20240705162450.3481169-11-john.g.garry@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | forcealign for xfs | expand |
> +static xfs_extlen_t > +xfs_bunmapi_align( > + struct xfs_inode *ip, > + xfs_fsblock_t bno) > +{ > + struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount; > + xfs_agblock_t agbno; > + > + if (xfs_inode_has_forcealign(ip)) { > + if (is_power_of_2(ip->i_extsize)) > + return bno & (ip->i_extsize - 1); > + > + agbno = XFS_FSB_TO_AGBNO(mp, bno); > + return agbno % ip->i_extsize; > + } > + ASSERT(XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip)); > + return xfs_rtb_to_rtxoff(ip->i_mount, bno); This helper isn't really bunmapi sepcific, is it? > @@ -5425,6 +5444,7 @@ __xfs_bunmapi( > struct xfs_bmbt_irec got; /* current extent record */ > struct xfs_ifork *ifp; /* inode fork pointer */ > int isrt; /* freeing in rt area */ > + int isforcealign; /* freeing for inode with forcealign */ This is really a bool. And while it matches the code around it the code feels a bit too verbose.. > > + if ((!isrt && !isforcealign) || (flags & XFS_BMAPI_REMAP)) > goto delete; > > - mod = xfs_rtb_to_rtxoff(mp, > - del.br_startblock + del.br_blockcount); > + mod = xfs_bunmapi_align(ip, del.br_startblock + del.br_blockcount); Overly long line. We've been long wanting to split the whole align / convert unwritten / etc code into a helper outside the main bumapi flow. And when adding new logic to it this might indeed be a good time. > + if (isforcealign) { > + off = ip->i_extsize - mod; > + } else { > + ASSERT(isrt); > + off = mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize - mod; > + } And we'll really need proper helpers so that we don't have to open code the i_extsize vs sb_rextsize logic all over.
On 06/07/2024 08:58, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> +static xfs_extlen_t >> +xfs_bunmapi_align( >> + struct xfs_inode *ip, >> + xfs_fsblock_t bno) >> +{ >> + struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount; >> + xfs_agblock_t agbno; >> + >> + if (xfs_inode_has_forcealign(ip)) { >> + if (is_power_of_2(ip->i_extsize)) >> + return bno & (ip->i_extsize - 1); >> + >> + agbno = XFS_FSB_TO_AGBNO(mp, bno); >> + return agbno % ip->i_extsize; >> + } >> + ASSERT(XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip)); >> + return xfs_rtb_to_rtxoff(ip->i_mount, bno); > > This helper isn't really bunmapi sepcific, is it? Right, it is not really. Apart from the ASSERT to ensure that we are not calling from a stray context. > >> @@ -5425,6 +5444,7 @@ __xfs_bunmapi( >> struct xfs_bmbt_irec got; /* current extent record */ >> struct xfs_ifork *ifp; /* inode fork pointer */ >> int isrt; /* freeing in rt area */ >> + int isforcealign; /* freeing for inode with forcealign */ > > This is really a bool. And while it matches the code around it the > code feels a bit too verbose.. I can change both to a bool - would that be better? Using isfa (instead of isforcealign) might be interpreted as something else :) >> >> + if ((!isrt && !isforcealign) || (flags & XFS_BMAPI_REMAP)) >> goto delete; >> >> - mod = xfs_rtb_to_rtxoff(mp, >> - del.br_startblock + del.br_blockcount); >> + mod = xfs_bunmapi_align(ip, del.br_startblock + del.br_blockcount); > > Overly long line. noted > > We've been long wanting to split the whole align / convert unwritten / > etc code into a helper outside the main bumapi flow. And when adding > new logic to it this might indeed be a good time. ok, I'll see if can come up with something > >> + if (isforcealign) { >> + off = ip->i_extsize - mod; >> + } else { >> + ASSERT(isrt); >> + off = mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize - mod; >> + } > > And we'll really need proper helpers so that we don't have to > open code the i_extsize vs sb_rextsize logic all over. sure >
On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 03:48:20PM +0100, John Garry wrote: >>> + int isforcealign; /* freeing for inode with forcealign */ >> >> This is really a bool. And while it matches the code around it the >> code feels a bit too verbose.. > > I can change both to a bool - would that be better? > > Using isfa (instead of isforcealign) might be interpreted as something else The check should be used in one single place where we decided if we need to to the alignment based adjustments. So IMHO just killing it and open coding it there seems way easier. Yes, it is in a loop, but compared to all the work done is is really cheap. >> We've been long wanting to split the whole align / convert unwritten / >> etc code into a helper outside the main bumapi flow. And when adding >> new logic to it this might indeed be a good time. > > ok, I'll see if can come up with something I can take a look too. There is some real mess in there like trying to account for cases where the transaction doesn't have a block reservation, which I think could have happen in truncate until Zhang Yi fixed it for the 6.11 merge window.
On Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 09:58:58AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > + if (isforcealign) { > > + off = ip->i_extsize - mod; > > + } else { > > + ASSERT(isrt); > > + off = mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize - mod; > > + } > > And we'll really need proper helpers so that we don't have to > open code the i_extsize vs sb_rextsize logic all over. We already have that: xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize(). Have the code get that value, then do all the alignment based on whether it is allocation unit size > mp->m_sb.sb_blocksize. Then all the calculations are generic and not dependent on forcealign or rt, but on whether the inode requires multi-block contiguous extent alignment.... i.e. alloc_size = xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize(ip); if (alloc_size > mp->m_sb.sb_blocksize) { /* do aligned allocation setup stuff */ ..... } .... No code should be doing "if (forcealign) ... else if (realtime) ..." branching for alignment purposes. All the code should all be generic based on the value xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize() returns. -Dave.
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 07:57:22PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > No code should be doing "if (forcealign) ... else if (realtime) ..." > branching for alignment purposes. All the code should all be > generic based on the value xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize() returns. Yes, please.
On 09/07/2024 08:46, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Hi Christoph, >> Using isfa (instead of isforcealign) might be interpreted as something else > The check should be used in one single place where we decided if > we need to to the alignment based adjustments. So IMHO just killing > it and open coding it there seems way easier. Yes, it is in a loop, > but compared to all the work done is is really cheap. > >>> We've been long wanting to split the whole align / convert unwritten / >>> etc code into a helper outside the main bumapi flow. And when adding >>> new logic to it this might indeed be a good time. >> ok, I'll see if can come up with something > I can take a look too. I was wondering what you plans are for any clean-up/refactoring here, as mentioned? I was starting to look at the whole "if (forcealign) else if (big rt)" flow refactoring in this series to use xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize(); however, I figure that you have plans wider in scope, which affects this. ? There is some real mess in there like trying > to account for cases where the transaction doesn't have a block > reservation, which I think could have happen in truncate until > Zhang Yi fixed it for the 6.11 merge window. Cheers, John
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 04:24:28PM +0100, John Garry wrote: >>>> new logic to it this might indeed be a good time. >>> ok, I'll see if can come up with something >> I can take a look too. > > I was wondering what you plans are for any clean-up/refactoring here, as > mentioned? Try to split all the convert left over of large rtextent / allocation size logic out of __xfs_bunmapi and into a separate helper or two. I started on it after writing that previous mail, but it has been preempted by more urgent work for now. > I was starting to look at the whole "if (forcealign) else if (big rt)" flow > refactoring in this series to use xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize(); however, I > figure that you have plans wider in scope, which affects this. It will create a bit of conflict, but nothing out of ordinary.
diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c index db12f006646a..07478c88a51b 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c @@ -5403,6 +5403,25 @@ xfs_bmap_del_extent_real( return 0; } +static xfs_extlen_t +xfs_bunmapi_align( + struct xfs_inode *ip, + xfs_fsblock_t bno) +{ + struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount; + xfs_agblock_t agbno; + + if (xfs_inode_has_forcealign(ip)) { + if (is_power_of_2(ip->i_extsize)) + return bno & (ip->i_extsize - 1); + + agbno = XFS_FSB_TO_AGBNO(mp, bno); + return agbno % ip->i_extsize; + } + ASSERT(XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip)); + return xfs_rtb_to_rtxoff(ip->i_mount, bno); +} + /* * Unmap (remove) blocks from a file. * If nexts is nonzero then the number of extents to remove is limited to @@ -5425,6 +5444,7 @@ __xfs_bunmapi( struct xfs_bmbt_irec got; /* current extent record */ struct xfs_ifork *ifp; /* inode fork pointer */ int isrt; /* freeing in rt area */ + int isforcealign; /* freeing for inode with forcealign */ int logflags; /* transaction logging flags */ xfs_extlen_t mod; /* rt extent offset */ struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount; @@ -5462,6 +5482,8 @@ __xfs_bunmapi( } XFS_STATS_INC(mp, xs_blk_unmap); isrt = xfs_ifork_is_realtime(ip, whichfork); + isforcealign = (whichfork != XFS_ATTR_FORK) && + xfs_inode_has_forcealign(ip); end = start + len; if (!xfs_iext_lookup_extent_before(ip, ifp, &end, &icur, &got)) { @@ -5513,14 +5535,13 @@ __xfs_bunmapi( if (del.br_startoff + del.br_blockcount > end + 1) del.br_blockcount = end + 1 - del.br_startoff; - if (!isrt || (flags & XFS_BMAPI_REMAP)) + if ((!isrt && !isforcealign) || (flags & XFS_BMAPI_REMAP)) goto delete; - mod = xfs_rtb_to_rtxoff(mp, - del.br_startblock + del.br_blockcount); + mod = xfs_bunmapi_align(ip, del.br_startblock + del.br_blockcount); if (mod) { /* - * Realtime extent not lined up at the end. + * Not aligned to allocation unit on the end. * The extent could have been split into written * and unwritten pieces, or we could just be * unmapping part of it. But we can't really @@ -5565,14 +5586,21 @@ __xfs_bunmapi( goto nodelete; } - mod = xfs_rtb_to_rtxoff(mp, del.br_startblock); + mod = xfs_bunmapi_align(ip, del.br_startblock); if (mod) { - xfs_extlen_t off = mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize - mod; + xfs_extlen_t off; + + if (isforcealign) { + off = ip->i_extsize - mod; + } else { + ASSERT(isrt); + off = mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize - mod; + } /* - * Realtime extent is lined up at the end but not - * at the front. We'll get rid of full extents if - * we can. + * Extent is lined up to the allocation unit at the + * end but not at the front. We'll get rid of full + * extents if we can. */ if (del.br_blockcount > off) { del.br_blockcount -= off;
For when forcealign is enabled, blocks in an inode need to be unmapped according to extent alignment, like what is already done for rtvol. Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com> --- fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)