在 2024/4/3 16:32, Sweet Tea Dorminy 写道:
This means, we will emit a entry that uses the end to the physical
extent end.
Considering a file layout like this:
item 6 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 15816 itemsize 53
generation 7 type 1 (regular)
extent data disk byte 13631488 nr 65536
extent data offset 0 nr 4096 ram 65536
extent compression 0 (none)
item 7 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 4096) itemoff 15763 itemsize 53
generation 8 type 1 (regular)
extent data disk byte 13697024 nr 4096
extent data offset 0 nr 4096 ram 4096
extent compression 0 (none)
item 8 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 8192) itemoff 15710 itemsize 53
generation 7 type 1 (regular)
extent data disk byte 13631488 nr 65536
extent data offset 8192 nr 57344 ram 65536
extent compression 0 (none)
For fiemap, we would got something like this:
fileoff 0, logical len 4k, phy 13631488, phy len 64K
fileoff 4k, logical len 4k, phy 13697024, phy len 4k
fileoff 8k, logical len 56k, phy 13631488 + 8k, phylen 56k
[HOW TO CALCULATE WASTED SPACE IN USER SPACE]
My concern is on the first entry. It indicates that we have wasted
60K (phy len is 64K, while logical len is only 4K)
But that information is not correct, as in reality we only wasted 4K,
the remaining 56K is still referred by file range [8K, 64K).
Do you mean that user space program should maintain a mapping of each
utilized physical range, and when handling the reported file range
[8K, 64K), the user space program should find that the physical range
covers with one existing extent, and do calculation correctly?
My goal is to give an unprivileged interface for tools like compsize
to figure out how much space is used by a particular set of files.
They report the total disk space referenced by the provided list of
files, currently by doing a tree search (CAP_SYS_ADMIN) for all the
extents pertaining to the requested files and deduplicating extents
based on disk_bytenr.
It seems simplest to me for userspace for the kernel to emit the
entire extent for each part of it referenced in a file, and let
userspace deal with deduplicating extents. This is also most similar
to the existing tree-search based interface. Reporting whole extents
gives more flexibility for userspace to figure out how to report
bookend extents, or shared extents, or ...
It does seem a little weird where if you request with fiemap only e.g.
4k-16k range in that example file you'll get reported all 68k
involved, but I can't figure out a way to fix that without having the
kernel keep track of used parts of the extents as part of reporting,
which sounds expensive.
You're right that I'm being inconsistent, taking off extent_offset
from the reported disk size when that isn't what I should be doing, so
I fixed that in v3.
Ah, I think I grasp a point I'd missed before.
- Without setting disk_bytenr to the actual start of the data on disk,
there's no way to find the location of the actual data on disk within
the extent from fiemap alone
Yes, that's my point.
- But reporting disk_bytenr + offset, to get actual start of data on
disk, means we need to report a physical size to figure out the end of
the extent and we can't know the beginning.
disk_bytenr + offset + disk_num_bytes, and with the existing things like
length (aka, num_bytes), filepos (aka, key.offset) flags
(compression/hole/preallocated etc), we have everything we need to know
for regular extents.
For compressed extents, we also need ram_bytes.
If you ask me, I'd say put all the extra members into fiemap entry if we
have the space...
It would be u64 * 4 if we go 1:1 on the file extent items, otherwise we
may cheap on offset and ram_bytes (u32 is enough for btrfs at least), in
that case it would be u64 * 2 + u32 * 2.
But I'm also 100% sure, the extra members would not be welcomed by other
filesystems either.
Thanks,
Qu
We can't convey both actual location, start, and end of the extent in
just two pieces of information.
On the other hand, if someone really needs to know the actual location
on disk of their data, they could use the tree_search ioctl as root to
do so?
So I still think we should be reporting entire extents but am less
confident that it doesn't break existing users. I am not sure how common
it is to take fiemap output on btrfs and use it to try to get to
physical data on disk - do you know of a tool that does so?
Thank you!
