Ping,
On 2018/2/13 15:34, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On 2018/2/10 10:52, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2018/2/10 9:41, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 02/01, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2018/2/1 6:15, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> On 01/31, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018/1/31 10:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> What if we want to add more entries in addition to node_checksum? Do we
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> to add a new feature flag at every time? How about adding a layout
>>>>>>> value instead
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm.. for previous implementation, IMO, we'd better add a new feature
>>>>>> flag at
>>>>>> every time, otherwise, w/ extra_nsize only, in current image, we can
>>>>>> know a
>>>>>> valid range of extended area in node block, but we don't know which
>>>>>> fields/features are valid/enabled or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One more thing is that if we can add one feature flag for each field, we
>>>>>> got one
>>>>>> more chance to disable it dynamically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of extra_nsize? For example, layout #1 means node_checksum with
>>>>>>> extra_nsize=X?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does 1017 mean? We need to make this structure more flexibly for
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, using raw 1017 is not appropriate here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> entries. Like this?
>>>>>>> union {
>>>>>>> struct node_v1;
>>>>>>> struct node_v2;
>>>>>>> struct node_v3;
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> struct direct_node dn;
>>>>>>> struct indirect_node in;
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct node_v1 {
>>>>>>> __le32 data[DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK - V1_NSIZE=1];
>>>>>>> __le32 node_checksum;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct node_v2 {
>>>>>>> __le32 data[DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK - V2_NSIZE=500];
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm.. If we only need to add one more 4 bytes field in struct node_v2,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> V2_NSIZE is defined as fixed 500, there must be 492 bytes wasted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or we can define V2_NSIZE as 8, but if there comes more and more extended
>>>>>> fields, node version count can be a large number, it results in
>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>> version recognization and handling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One more question is how can we control which fields are valid or not in
>>>>>> comp[Vx_NSIZE]?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, what I'm thinking is maybe we can restructure layout of node
>>>>>> block like
>>>>>> the one used by f2fs_inode:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct f2fs_node {
>>>>>> union {
>>>>>> struct f2fs_inode i;
>>>>>> union {
>>>>>> struct {
>>>>>> __le32 node_checksum;
>>>>>> __le32 feature_field_1;
>>>>>> __le32 feature_field_2;
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>> __le32 addr[];
>>>>>>
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> struct direct_node dn;
>>>>>> struct indirect_node in;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> struct node_footer footer;
>>>>>> } __packed;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moving all extended fields to the head of f2fs_node, so we don't have to
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> macro to indicate actual size of addr.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking what'd be the best way. My concern is, once getting more
>>>>> entries, we
>>>>
>>>> OK, I think we need more discussion.. ;)
>>>>
>>>>> can't set each of features individually. Like the second entry should have
>>>>
>>>> Oh, that will be hard. If we have to avoid that, we have to tag in
>>>> somewhere
>>>> e.g. f2fs_inode::i_flags2 to indicate which new field in f2fs_node is
>>>> valid, for
>>>> example:
>>>>
>>>> #define F2FS_NODE_CHECKSUM 0x0001
>>>> #define F2FS_NODE_FIELD1 0x0002
>>>> #define F2FS_NODE_FIELD2 0x0004
>>>>
>>>> union {
>>>> struct {
>>>> __le32 node_checksum;
>>>> __le32 field_1;
>>>> __le32 field_2;
>>>> ....
>>>> __le32 addr[];
>>>> };
>>>> struct direct_node dn;
>>>> struct indirect_node in;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> f2fs_inode::i_flags2 = F2FS_NODE_CHECKSUM | F2FS_NODE_FIELD1
>>>> indicates that f2fs_node::node_checksum and f2fs_node::field_1 are valid;
>>>>
>>>> f2fs_inode::i_flags2 = F2FS_NODE_FIELD1 | F2FS_NODE_FIELD2
>>>> indicates that f2fs_node::field_1 and f2fs_node::field_2 are valid.
>>>
>>> So, that's why I thought we may need a sort of each formats.
>>
>> Hmm.. if we have two new added fields, there are (2 << 2) combinations
>> of all formats, as:
>>
>> struct original {
>> __le32 data[DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK];
>> }
>>
>> struct node_v1 {
>> __le32 data[DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK - V1_NSIZE=1];
>> __le32 field_1;
>> }
>>
>> struct node_v2 {
>> __le32 data[DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK - V2_NSIZE=1];
>> __le32 field_2;
>> }
>>
>> struct node_v2 {
>> __le32 data[DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK - V3_NSIZE=2];
>> __le32 field_1;
>> __le32 field_2;
>> }
>>
>> If we add more new fields, the node version will increase sharply due
>> to there is (n << 2) combination with n fields. Right? Any thoughts to
>> reduce maintaining overhead on those node versions structures?
>
> Do you have time to explain more about the design of multiple version
> structure
> for node block, I'm still be confused about two things:
> 1. what will we do if we want to add one new field in node structure.
> 2. how can we recognize which fields are valid and which ones are invalid.
>
> Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>> enabled node_checksum, which we may not want to do.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __le32 comp[V2_NSIZE];
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>> + struct direct_node dn;
>>>>>>>> + struct indirect_node in;
>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>> struct node_footer footer;
>>>>>>>> } __packed;
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 2.15.0.55.gc2ece9dc4de6
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
