Hi Eric and Jaegeuk,
On 2018/4/19 1:18, Eric Biggers via Linux-f2fs-devel wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 02:27:32PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 2018/4/18 1:42, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 05:13:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void bio_post_read_processing(struct bio_post_read_ctx *ctx);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void decrypt_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct bio_post_read_ctx *ctx =
>>>>> + container_of(work, struct bio_post_read_ctx, work);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + fscrypt_decrypt_bio(ctx->bio);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + bio_post_read_processing(ctx);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void bio_post_read_processing(struct bio_post_read_ctx *ctx)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + switch (++ctx->cur_step) {
>>>>> + case STEP_DECRYPT:
>>>>> + if (ctx->enabled_steps & (1 << STEP_DECRYPT)) {
>>>>> + INIT_WORK(&ctx->work, decrypt_work);
>>>>> + fscrypt_enqueue_decrypt_work(&ctx->work);
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + ctx->cur_step++;
>>>>> + /* fall-through */
>>>>> + default:
>>>>> + __read_end_io(ctx->bio);
>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> How about introducing __bio_post_read_processing()
>>>>
>>>> switch (step) {
>>>> case STEP_DECRYPT:
>>>> ...
>>>> break;
>>>> case STEP_COMPRESS:
>>>> ...
>>>> break;
>>>> case STEP_GENERIC:
>>>> __read_end_io;
>>>> break;
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Then we can customize flexible read processes like:
>>>>
>>>> bio_post_read_processing()
>>>> {
>>>> if (encrypt_enabled)
>>>> __bio_post_read_processing(, STEP_DECRYPT);
>>>> if (compress_enabled)
>>>> __bio_post_read_processing(, STEP_COMPRESS);
>>>> __bio_post_read_processing(, STEP_GENERIC);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Or other flow.
>>>
>>> If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that all the steps be done in a
>>> single workqueue item? The problem with that is that the verity work will
>>
>> Yup,
>>
>>> require I/O to the file to read hashes, which may need STEP_DECRYPT. Hence,
>>> decryption and verity will need separate workqueues.
>>
>> For decryption and verity, the needs separated data, I agree that we can not
>> merge the work into one workqueue.
>>
>> As you mentioned in commit message, it can be used by compression later, so I
>> just thought that for decryption and decompression, maybe we can do those
>> work
>> sequentially in one workqueue?
>>
>
> Sure. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do, though, since f2fs
> compression
Oh, I just want to make codes be more scalability, once we want to add more
features which will need a background task, we can easily add one more case
handler in the function to support it.
> doesn't exist yet. If/when there are multiple steps that can be combined,
> then
> bio_post_read_processing() can be updated to schedule them together.
Alright, please go ahead with original design.
>
>>>
>>>>> @@ -481,29 +537,33 @@ static struct bio *f2fs_grab_read_bio(struct inode
>>>>> *inode, block_t blkaddr,
>>>>> unsigned nr_pages)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode);
>>>>> - struct fscrypt_ctx *ctx = NULL;
>>>>> struct bio *bio;
>>>>> -
>>>>> - if (f2fs_encrypted_file(inode)) {
>>>>> - ctx = fscrypt_get_ctx(inode, GFP_NOFS);
>>>>> - if (IS_ERR(ctx))
>>>>> - return ERR_CAST(ctx);
>>>>> -
>>>>> - /* wait the page to be moved by cleaning */
>>>>> - f2fs_wait_on_block_writeback(sbi, blkaddr);
>>>>> - }
>>>>> + struct bio_post_read_ctx *ctx;
>>>>> + unsigned int post_read_steps = 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> bio = f2fs_bio_alloc(sbi, min_t(int, nr_pages, BIO_MAX_PAGES), false);
>>>>> - if (!bio) {
>>>>> - if (ctx)
>>>>> - fscrypt_release_ctx(ctx);
>>>>> + if (!bio)
>>>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>>>> - }
>>>>> f2fs_target_device(sbi, blkaddr, bio);
>>>>> bio->bi_end_io = f2fs_read_end_io;
>>>>> - bio->bi_private = ctx;
>>>>
>>>> bio->bi_private = NULL;
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see why. ->bi_private is NULL by default.
>>
>> As we will check bi_private in read_end_io anyway, if it is not NULL, we will
>> parse it as an ctx, am I missing something?
>>
>
> We're allocating a new bio. New bios have NULL ->bi_private.
What I concern is that since we will port last developed code to old kernel by
ourselves, I don't want to make f2fs code rely on block layer code's robust, so
I'd like to NULL bi_private by f2fs.
I checked history of bio_init(), seems that it started to initialize bi_private
from very early version. So, alright, for new kernel, it's will not cause any
problem.
Thanks,
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>>>> + bio_post_read_ctx_pool =
>>>>> + mempool_create_slab_pool(128, bio_post_read_ctx_cache);
>>>>
>>>> #define MAX_POST_READ_CACHE_SIZE 128
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that makes sense.
>>>
>
> Actually it's the number of contexts preallocated in the mempool, so I'm going
> to call it NUM_PREALLOC_POST_READ_CTXS. It's similar to
> 'num_prealloc_crypto_ctxs' in fs/crypto/crypto.c.
>
> Eric
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
