On 8/21/13 9:14 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>
> This patch started as an xfstest to test Jeff's advanced seek_data features. The C code we had for that feature was deemed as an xfs_io feature.
*nod*
Forgive me for looking more carefully now than then, sorry.
Argh, and for missing that you're already on V5, I missed
the previous reviews. Well, I did find at least one speling eror,
so there's that. But more below...
> On 08/20/13 18:07, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 8/16/13 3:54 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>>
>>> Add the lseek SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE support into xfs_io.
>>> The result from the lseek() call will be printed to the output.
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> xfs_io> lseek -h 609k
>>> Type Offset
>>> hole 630784
>>
>> HOLE not hole, I guess. ;)
>>
>> I was going to say that's a lot of verbosity for a single output,
>> but I guess the other options might have many lines, so I suppose
>> it makes sense.
>>
>> (I was just thinking about what xfstests might need to do to filter
>> & parse output...)
>
> parsing is a bear because there are multiple correct answers.
> There is always a legal hole at EOF and that if SEEK_HOLE is not implemented that is the answer they give.
>
> Different versions of XFS seek_data code will give different answer to the same test depending on what is supported in that version.
>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Tinguely<tinguely@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> Not trying to be difficult. Dave wanted the single hole/data/hole and data
>>> seperated from the recursive loop, but doing it that way is basically unrolling
>>> the loop into a if-then-else and is really terrible. If this is still not
>>> acceptable, then we can throw this feature into /dev/null.
>>>
>>> configure.ac | 1
>>> include/builddefs.in | 1
>>> io/Makefile | 5 +
>>> io/init.c | 1
>>> io/io.h | 6 +
>>> io/seek.c | 187 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> m4/package_libcdev.m4 | 15 ++++
>>> man/man8/xfs_io.8 | 35 +++++++++
>>> 8 files changed, 251 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> Index: b/configure.ac
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- a/configure.ac
>>> +++ b/configure.ac
>>> @@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ AC_HAVE_GETMNTINFO
>>> AC_HAVE_FALLOCATE
>>> AC_HAVE_FIEMAP
>>> AC_HAVE_PREADV
>>> +AC_HAVE_SEEK_DATA
>>> AC_HAVE_SYNC_FILE_RANGE
>>> AC_HAVE_BLKID_TOPO($enable_blkid)
>>> AC_HAVE_READDIR
>>> Index: b/include/builddefs.in
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- a/include/builddefs.in
>>> +++ b/include/builddefs.in
>>> @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ HAVE_GETMNTINFO = @have_getmntinfo@
>>> HAVE_FALLOCATE = @have_fallocate@
>>> HAVE_FIEMAP = @have_fiemap@
>>> HAVE_PREADV = @have_preadv@
>>> +HAVE_SEEK_DATA = @have_seek_data@
>>> HAVE_SYNC_FILE_RANGE = @have_sync_file_range@
>>> HAVE_READDIR = @have_readdir@
>>>
>>> Index: b/io/Makefile
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- a/io/Makefile
>>> +++ b/io/Makefile
>>> @@ -85,6 +85,11 @@ CFILES += readdir.c
>>> LCFLAGS += -DHAVE_READDIR
>>> endif
>>>
>>> +ifeq ($(HAVE_SEEK_DATA),yes)
>>> +LCFLAGS += -DHAVE_SEEK_DATA
>>> +CFILES += seek.c
>>
>> see below; we should unconditionally compile, but conditionally
>> locally define SEEK_DATA / SEEK_HOLE
>>
>
> It was put in to check if SEEK_DATA is supported.
>
> Yes, it expects the user headers to reflect what the kernel is capable of doing.
well, especially on a development system, the installed headers may not
reflect or match the running kernel.
So even if system headers don't have SEEK_DATA it, the running kernel may
still be capable of it, right?
We've done similar things for i.e. fallocate PUNCH_HOLE.
> If you don't want it, then it will be removed.
I think it makes sense to build it & locally define if necessary.
On my RHEL6 root w/ an upstream devel kernel seek.c wouldn't have
built, even though it'd have worked perfectly w/ a local define.
>>> +endif
>>> +
>>> default: depend $(LTCOMMAND)
>>>
>>> include $(BUILDRULES)
>>> Index: b/io/init.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- a/io/init.c
>>> +++ b/io/init.c
>>> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ init_commands(void)
>>> help_init();
>>> imap_init();
>>> inject_init();
>>> + seek_init();
>>> madvise_init();
>>> mincore_init();
>>> mmap_init();
>>> Index: b/io/io.h
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- a/io/io.h
>>> +++ b/io/io.h
>>> @@ -108,6 +108,12 @@ extern void quit_init(void);
>>> extern void shutdown_init(void);
>>> extern void truncate_init(void);
>>>
>>> +#ifdef HAVE_SEEK_DATA
>>> +extern void seek_init(void);
>>> +#else
>>> +#define seek_init() do { } while (0)
>>> +#endif
>>
>> this can go when we unconditionally compile it in
>>
>>> +
>>> #ifdef HAVE_FADVISE
>>> extern void fadvise_init(void);
>>> #else
>>> Index: b/io/seek.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/io/seek.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
>>> +/*
>>> + * Copyright (c) 2013 SGI
>>> + * All Rights Reserved.
>>> + *
>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>> + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>> + *
>>> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful,
>>> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>>> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
>>> + *
>>> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>>> + * along with this program; if not, write the Free Software Foundation,
>>> + * Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +#include<libxfs.h>
>>
>> hm, including this clashes w/ the min() define in io/init.h,
>> which is maybe a separate problem down the line, but libxfs.h
>> isn't required anyway for this file, so I'd just drop this include.
>>
>>> +#include<linux/fs.h>
>
> I think the previous review had a problem with this header which should be removed.
oh yeah, Dave did ask (now that I'm caught up with the last 4 reviews) :(
And yeah it builds fine w/o either libxfs.h or linux/fs.h, so I'd just yank
'em both.
>>> +
>>> +#include<sys/uio.h>
>>> +#include<xfs/xfs.h>
>>> +#include<xfs/command.h>
>>> +#include<xfs/input.h>
>>> +#include<ctype.h>
>>> +#include "init.h"
>>> +#include "io.h"
>>
>> #ifndef HAVE_SEEK_DATA
>> #define SEEK_DATA 3 /* seek to the next data */
>> #define SEEK_HOLE 4 /* seek to the next hole */
>> #endif
>>
>>> +
>>> +static cmdinfo_t seek_cmd;
>>> +
>>> +static void
>>> +seek_help(void)
>>> +{
>>> + printf(_(
>>> +"\n"
>>> +" returns the next hole and/or data offset at or after the specified offset\n"
>>> +"\n"
>>> +" Example:\n"
>>> +" 'seek -d 512' - offset of data at or following offset 512\n"
>>> +" 'seek -a -r 0' - offsets of all data and hole in entire file\n"
>>> +"\n"
>>> +" Returns the offset of the next data and/or hole. There is an implied hole\n"
>>> +" at the end of file.
>>
>> is this expected, given the hole at the end of the file? This is for a single
>> non-sparse file:
>>
>> xfs_io> seek -ar 0
>> Type offset
>> DATA 0
>> HOLE 3022
>> DATA EOF
>>
>> That last line doesn't make sense, does it?
>
> Parsing is the reason the entry is there so the output always has
> consistent ending entry - some queries that is the only answer (or
> now no message) no biggy one way or the other.
Hm, ok, clearly you've thought about this more than I have.
It just surprised me...
So let me just think out loud here w/ examples.
For a 1M 100% nonsparse file we get:
# io/xfs_io -c "seek -ar 0" alldata
Type offset
DATA 0
HOLE 1048576
DATA EOF
For a 1M 100% sparse file (i_size and no blocks at all) we get:
# io/xfs_io -c "seek -ar 0" allsparse
Type offset
HOLE 0
DATA EOF
For a 1M file w/ only the first 512k w/ data, then hole,
we get:
# io/xfs_io -c "seek -ar 0" endhole
Type offset
DATA 0
HOLE 524288
DATA EOF
For a 1M file w/ 512k of hole and then 512k w/ data, we get:
# io/xfs_io -c "seek -ar 0" starthole
Type offset
HOLE 0
DATA 524288
HOLE 1048576
DATA EOF
So in each case, the "DATA EOF" at the end seems odd to me.
And in each case above, the output is unique w/o the EOF flag
anwyway, right?
I'm probably missing it; in what cases is the EOF record
useful? It just seems beyond the scope of SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA.
(i.e. EOF is SEEK_END)
If the EOF is really helpful, maybe it is possible instead to do something like:
# io/xfs_io -c "seek -ar 0" starthole
Type offset
HOLE 0
DATA 524288
EOF 1048575
HOLE 1048576
That makes more intuitive sense to me if you really need the EOF
record, but I dunno, what do you think?
>>
>>> If the specified offset is past end of file, or there\n"
>>> +" is no data past the specied offset, EOF is returned.\n"
>>
>> "specified"
>>
>>> +" -a -- return the next data and hole starting at the specified offset.\n"
>>> +" -d -- return the next data starting at the specified offset.\n"
>>> +" -h -- return the next hole starting at the specified offset.\n"
>>> +" -r -- return all remaining type(s) starting at the specified offset.\n"
>>> +"\n"));
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +#define SEEK_DFLAG (1<< 0)
>>> +#define SEEK_HFLAG (1<< 1)
>>> +#define SEEK_RFLAG (1<< 2)
>>> +#define DATA 0
>>> +#define HOLE 1
>>> +
>>> +struct seekinfo {
>>> + char *name;
>>> + int seektype;
>>> + int mask;
>>> +} seekinfo[] = {
>>> + {"DATA", SEEK_DATA, SEEK_DFLAG},
>>> + {"HOLE", SEEK_HOLE, SEEK_HFLAG}
>>
>> I guess "DATA" doesn't get replaced by "0" ? Sorry, I failed cpp 101.
>> It prints the right thing so I guess not. ;)
>>
>
> :) no the defines are subscripts = see "current ="
I did see that, I just wasn't sure if it'd replace it in literal
strings, but apparently not.
>
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +void
>>> +seek_output(
>>> + char *type,
>>> + off64_t offset)
>>> +{
>>> + if (offset == -1) {
>>> + if (errno == ENXIO)
>>> + printf("%s EOF\n", type);
>>> + else
>>> + printf("%s ERR %d\n", type, errno);
>>> + } else
>>> + printf("%s %ld\n", type, offset);
one more; for 32-bit systems I think this should be
printf("%s %lld\n", type, (long long)offset);
to avoid a warning; that's what i.e. the pwrite printf's do.
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int
>>> +seek_f(
>>> + int argc,
>>> + char **argv)
>>> +{
>>> + off64_t offset, result;
>>> + size_t fsblocksize, fssectsize;
>>> + int flag;
>>> + int current; /* specify data or hole */
>>> + int c;
>>> +
>>> + flag = 0;
>>> + init_cvtnum(&fsblocksize,&fssectsize);
>>> +
>>> + while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, "adhr")) != EOF) {
>>> + switch (c) {
>>> + case 'a':
>>> + flag |= (SEEK_HFLAG | SEEK_DFLAG);
>>> + break;
>>> + case 'd':
>>> + flag |= SEEK_DFLAG;
>>> + break;
>>> + case 'h':
>>> + flag |= SEEK_HFLAG;
>>> + break;
>>> + case 'r':
>>> + flag |= SEEK_RFLAG;
>>> + break;
>>> + default:
>>> + return command_usage(&seek_cmd);
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + /* must have hole or data specified and an offset */
super-nitpick, extra tab before the comment.
>>> + if (!(flag& (SEEK_DFLAG | SEEK_HFLAG)) ||
>>> + optind != argc - 1)
>>> + return command_usage(&seek_cmd);
>>> +
>>> + offset = cvtnum(fsblocksize, fssectsize, argv[optind]);
>>
>> need to error check that:
>>
>> xfs_io> seek -a 8x8
>> Type offset
>> HOLE EOF
>>
>
> Some version of XFS seek_data will treat it as a 0, but okay.
but I mean the error from cvtnum, if you don't give it a valid string;
nothing to do w/ seek_data ...
Thanks,
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
