On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 01:58:51PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 10:53 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The recent fallocate/fpunch additions to fsx have not actually be
> > executing fallocate/fpunch operations. The logic to select what
> > operation to run is broken in such a way that fsx has been executing
> > mapped writes and truncates instead of fallocate and fpunch
> > operations.
> >
> > Remove all the (b0rken) smarty-pants selection logic from the test()
> > function. Replace it with a clearly defined set of operations for
> > each mode and use understandable fallback logic when various
> > operation types have been disabled. Then use a simple switch
> > statement to execute each of the different operations, removing the
> > tortured nesting of if/else statements that only serve to obfuscate
> > the code.
> >
> > As a result, fsx uses fallocate/fpunch appropriately during
> > operations and uses/disableѕ the operations as defined on the
> > command line correctly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I started trying to understand the logic of the original in order
> to make sure your new version preserved the logic. But then I
> concluded it was just plain broken, and understood exactly the
> point of this change...
>
> So I just looked at your new code. I have a few minor things
> but it otherwise looks good to me. The way "closeopen" is
> (still) computed is a bit funked up (and possibly just wrong),
> but I'm not going to complain--you've done a lot of good here.
>
> Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
>
> > ---
> > ltp/fsx.c | 192 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > 1 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/ltp/fsx.c b/ltp/fsx.c
> > index a37e223..41d7c20 100644
> > --- a/ltp/fsx.c
> > +++ b/ltp/fsx.c
> > @@ -58,18 +58,47 @@ int logptr = 0; /* current position in log */
> > int logcount = 0; /* total ops */
> >
> > /*
> > - * Define operations
> > + * The operation matrix is complex due to conditional execution of different
> > + * features. Hence when we come to deciding what operation to run, we need to
> > + * be careful in how we select the different operations. The active operations
> > + * are mapped to numbers as follows:
> > + *
> > + * lite !lite
> > + * READ: 0 0
> > + * WRITE: 1 1
> > + * MAPREAD: 2 2
> > + * MAPWRITE: 3 3
> > + * TRUNCATE: - 4
> > + * FALLOCATE: - 5
> > + * PUNCH HOLE: - 6
> > + *
> > + * When mapped read/writes are disabled, they are simply converted to normal
> > + * reads and writes. When fallocate/fpunch calls are disabled, they are
> > + * converted to OP_SKIPPED. Hence OP_SKIPPED needs to have a number higher than
>
> The "hence" is not obvious. The reason it needs to have a
> higher number is that the operation is selected at random
> among the number of operations available (either in "lite"
> or in "full" mode).
I'll reword it so it is obvious ;)
>
> > + * the operation selction matrix, as does the OP_CLOSEOPEN which is an
>
> selection
>
> > + * operation modifier rather than an operation in itself.
> > + *
> > + * Because of the "lite" version, we also need to have different "maximum
> > + * operation" defines to allow the ops to be selected correctly based on the
> > + * mode being run.
> > */
> >
> > -#define OP_READ 1
> > -#define OP_WRITE 2
> > -#define OP_TRUNCATE 3
> > -#define OP_CLOSEOPEN 4
> > -#define OP_MAPREAD 5
> > -#define OP_MAPWRITE 6
> > -#define OP_SKIPPED 7
> > -#define OP_FALLOCATE 8
> > -#define OP_PUNCH_HOLE 9
> > +/* common operations */
> > +#define OP_READ 0
> > +#define OP_WRITE 1
> > +#define OP_MAPREAD 2
> > +#define OP_MAPWRITE 3
> > +#define OP_MAX_LITE 4
>
> To me, "max" suggests that it is an included value
> in the range. So I'd rather see this be "OP_NUM_LITE"
> or (my preference) "OP_LITE_COUNT". Similarly for
> OP_MAX_FULL below.
Ok, makes sense.
>
> > +
> > +/* !lite operations */
> > +#define OP_TRUNCATE 4
> > +#define OP_FALLOCATE 5
> > +#define OP_PUNCH_HOLE 6
> > +#define OP_MAX_FULL 7
> > +
> > +/* operation modifiers */
> > +#define OP_CLOSEOPEN 100
> > +#define OP_SKIPPED 101
> >
> > #undef PAGE_SIZE
> > #define PAGE_SIZE getpagesize()
> > @@ -955,6 +984,15 @@ docloseopen(void)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +#define TRIM_OFF_LEN(off, len, size) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (file_size) \
> > + offset %= size; \
> > + else \
> > + offset = 0; \
> > + if (offset + len > size) \
> > + len = size - offset; \
> > +} while (0)
>
> This macro is a very good idea. However it differs
> from the original behavior when used for OP_WRITE,
> OP_MAPWRITE, OP_FALLOCATE, and OP_PUNCH_HOLE in
> that if file_size is zero, offset will be set to
> zero. It seems like that behavior difference is
> significant, but I don't think it has a practical
> effect on the results of the test. I've left the
> code in question below for reference.
True, it is a slight change in behaviour for OP_WRITE and
OP_FALLOCATE. I'll modify the macro to do the same thing.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
