[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6d8f4eb-e1ab-4a83-b552-0b58ec120299@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 16:11:56 +0800
From: Hongbo Li <lihongbo22@...wei.com>
To: Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@...gle.com>
CC: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>, LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-erofs mailing list
<linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: Maybe update the minextblks in wrong way?
On 2025/4/24 14:51, Sandeep Dhavale wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 6:50 PM Hongbo Li <lihongbo22@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sandeep,
>> The consecutive chunks will be merged if possible, but after commit
>> 545988a65131 ("erofs-utils: lib: Fix calculation of minextblks when
>> working with sparse files"), the @minextblks will be updated into a
>> smaller value even the chunks are consecutive by blobchunks.c:379. I
>> think maybe the last operation that updates @minextblks is unnecessary,
>> since this value would have already been adjusted earlier when handling
>> discontinuous chunks. Likes:
>>
>> ```
>> --- a/lib/blobchunk.c
>> +++ b/lib/blobchunk.c
>> @@ -376,7 +376,6 @@ int erofs_blob_write_chunked_file(struct erofs_inode
>> *inode, int fd,
>> *(void **)idx++ = chunk;
>> lastch = chunk;
>> }
>> - erofs_update_minextblks(sbi, interval_start, pos, &minextblks);
>> inode->datalayout = EROFS_INODE_CHUNK_BASED;
>> free(chunkdata);
>> return erofs_blob_mergechunks(inode, chunkbits,
>>
>> ```
>> This way can reduces the chunk index array's size. And what about your
>> opinion?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hongbo
>
> Hi Hongbo,
> I think the last call is necessary to handle the tail end which is not
> handled in the for loop. But I understand that if the file is
> contiguous then the last call can reduce minextblks.
Ok, also should update is_contiguous in another place when we found the
dedup chunk for non-sparse file?
By the way, why we should use the value of lowbit instead of the (end -
start) >> sbi->blkszbits to update minextblks? The lowbit will get the
smaller value.
Thanks,
Hongbo
>
> Does the below patch address your concern to conditionally call the
> last erofs_update_minextblks()?
>
> Thanks,
> Sandeep.
>
> diff --git a/lib/blobchunk.c b/lib/blobchunk.c
> index de9150f..47fe923 100644
> --- a/lib/blobchunk.c
> +++ b/lib/blobchunk.c
> @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ int erofs_blob_write_chunked_file(struct
> erofs_inode *inode, int fd,
> lastch = NULL;
> minextblks = BLK_ROUND_UP(sbi, inode->i_size);
> interval_start = 0;
> + bool is_contiguous = true;
>
> for (pos = 0; pos < inode->i_size; pos += len) {
> #ifdef SEEK_DATA
> @@ -332,6 +333,7 @@ int erofs_blob_write_chunked_file(struct
> erofs_inode *inode, int fd,
> erofs_update_minextblks(sbi, interval_start,
> pos, &minextblks);
> interval_start = pos;
> + is_contiguous = false;
> }
> do {
> *(void **)idx++ = &erofs_holechunk;
> @@ -365,7 +367,8 @@ int erofs_blob_write_chunked_file(struct
> erofs_inode *inode, int fd,
> *(void **)idx++ = chunk;
> lastch = chunk;
> }
> - erofs_update_minextblks(sbi, interval_start, pos, &minextblks);
> + if (!is_contiguous)
> + erofs_update_minextblks(sbi, interval_start, pos, &minextblks);
> inode->datalayout = EROFS_INODE_CHUNK_BASED;
> free(chunkdata);
> return erofs_blob_mergechunks(inode, chunkbits,
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists