On 04/13, Chao Yu wrote:
> Ping again..
>
> Do you have time to discuss this?
We may need a time to have a chat in person. Do you have any chance to visit
US?
>
> On 2018/2/27 22:16, Chao Yu wrote:
> > 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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > .
> >
