Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] mkfs.f2fs: check zeros in first 16MB for Android
On 2019/8/16 9:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 08/16, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2019/8/16 6:21, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 08/12, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2019/8/9 23:12, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> We actually don't need to issue trim on entire disk by checking first
> blocks having zeros.
In heap mode, we locate node log header to tail end of device, should we
consider to check block contain according to heap option?
>>>
>>> I wanted to check F2FS metadata mainly.
>>
>> Oh, I thought you mean main area. :P
>>
>>>
BTW, if we changed cp_ver whenever mkfs, why should we still issue trim to
obsolete old data in node remained in image?
>>>
>>> For simplicity. :P
>>
>> I didn't get why we can assume all metadata are zeroed if first 16MB are all
>> zero...
>>
>> BTW, if first 16MB are non-zero, why not just trim F2FS metadata rather than
>> whole area?
>
> Trim the entire space so that we can skip discard in runtime by the flag,
> right?
You're right, thanks helping recall. ;)
Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
Thanks,
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim
> ---
> v2 from v1:
> - clean up
>
> mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c | 53 ++--
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> index 8bf128c..f2d55ad 100644
> --- a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> +++ b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> #ifndef ANDROID_WINDOWS_HOST
> #include
> #endif
> @@ -110,13 +111,61 @@ static int trim_device(int i)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static bool is_wiped_device(int i)
> +{
> +#ifdef WITH_ANDROID
> + struct device_info *dev = c.devices + i;
> + int fd = dev->fd;
> + char *buf, *zero_buf;
> + bool wiped = true;
> + int nblocks = 4096; /* 16MB size */
> + int j;
> +
> + buf = malloc(F2FS_BLKSIZE);
> + if (buf == NULL) {
> + MSG(1, "\tError: Malloc Failed for buf!!!\n");
> + return false;
> + }
> + zero_buf = calloc(1, F2FS_BLKSIZE);
> + if (zero_buf == NULL) {
> + MSG(1, "\tError: Calloc Failed for zero buf!!!\n");
> + free(buf);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + if (lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET) < 0) {
> + free(zero_buf);
> + free(buf);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + /* check first n blocks */
> + for (j = 0; j < nblocks; j++) {
> + if (read(fd, buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE) != F2FS_BLKSIZE ||
> + memcmp(buf, zero_buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE)) {
> + wiped = false;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + free(zero_buf);
> + free(buf);
> +
> + if (wiped)
> + MSG(0, "Info: Found all zeros in first %d blocks\n", nblocks);
> + return wiped;
> +#else
> + return false;
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> int f2fs_trim_devices(void)
> {
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++)
> - if (trim_device(i))
> + for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++) {
> + if (!is_wiped_device(i) && trim_device(i))
> return -1;
> + }
> c.trimmed = 1;
> return 0;
> }
>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] mkfs.f2fs: check zeros in first 16MB for Android
On 08/16, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2019/8/16 6:21, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 08/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2019/8/9 23:12, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> We actually don't need to issue trim on entire disk by checking first
> >>> blocks having zeros.
> >>
> >> In heap mode, we locate node log header to tail end of device, should we
> >> consider to check block contain according to heap option?
> >
> > I wanted to check F2FS metadata mainly.
>
> Oh, I thought you mean main area. :P
>
> >
> >>
> >> BTW, if we changed cp_ver whenever mkfs, why should we still issue trim to
> >> obsolete old data in node remained in image?
> >
> > For simplicity. :P
>
> I didn't get why we can assume all metadata are zeroed if first 16MB are all
> zero...
>
> BTW, if first 16MB are non-zero, why not just trim F2FS metadata rather than
> whole area?
Trim the entire space so that we can skip discard in runtime by the flag, right?
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim
> >>> ---
> >>> v2 from v1:
> >>> - clean up
> >>>
> >>> mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c | 53 ++--
> >>> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> >>> index 8bf128c..f2d55ad 100644
> >>> --- a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> >>> +++ b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> >>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> >>> #include
> >>> #include
> >>> #include
> >>> +#include
> >>> #ifndef ANDROID_WINDOWS_HOST
> >>> #include
> >>> #endif
> >>> @@ -110,13 +111,61 @@ static int trim_device(int i)
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +static bool is_wiped_device(int i)
> >>> +{
> >>> +#ifdef WITH_ANDROID
> >>> + struct device_info *dev = c.devices + i;
> >>> + int fd = dev->fd;
> >>> + char *buf, *zero_buf;
> >>> + bool wiped = true;
> >>> + int nblocks = 4096; /* 16MB size */
> >>> + int j;
> >>> +
> >>> + buf = malloc(F2FS_BLKSIZE);
> >>> + if (buf == NULL) {
> >>> + MSG(1, "\tError: Malloc Failed for buf!!!\n");
> >>> + return false;
> >>> + }
> >>> + zero_buf = calloc(1, F2FS_BLKSIZE);
> >>> + if (zero_buf == NULL) {
> >>> + MSG(1, "\tError: Calloc Failed for zero buf!!!\n");
> >>> + free(buf);
> >>> + return false;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + if (lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET) < 0) {
> >>> + free(zero_buf);
> >>> + free(buf);
> >>> + return false;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + /* check first n blocks */
> >>> + for (j = 0; j < nblocks; j++) {
> >>> + if (read(fd, buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE) != F2FS_BLKSIZE ||
> >>> + memcmp(buf, zero_buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE)) {
> >>> + wiped = false;
> >>> + break;
> >>> + }
> >>> + }
> >>> + free(zero_buf);
> >>> + free(buf);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (wiped)
> >>> + MSG(0, "Info: Found all zeros in first %d blocks\n", nblocks);
> >>> + return wiped;
> >>> +#else
> >>> + return false;
> >>> +#endif
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> int f2fs_trim_devices(void)
> >>> {
> >>> int i;
> >>>
> >>> - for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++)
> >>> - if (trim_device(i))
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++) {
> >>> + if (!is_wiped_device(i) && trim_device(i))
> >>> return -1;
> >>> + }
> >>> c.trimmed = 1;
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> > .
> >
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] mkfs.f2fs: check zeros in first 16MB for Android
On 2019/8/16 6:21, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 08/12, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2019/8/9 23:12, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> We actually don't need to issue trim on entire disk by checking first
>>> blocks having zeros.
>>
>> In heap mode, we locate node log header to tail end of device, should we
>> consider to check block contain according to heap option?
>
> I wanted to check F2FS metadata mainly.
Oh, I thought you mean main area. :P
>
>>
>> BTW, if we changed cp_ver whenever mkfs, why should we still issue trim to
>> obsolete old data in node remained in image?
>
> For simplicity. :P
I didn't get why we can assume all metadata are zeroed if first 16MB are all
zero...
BTW, if first 16MB are non-zero, why not just trim F2FS metadata rather than
whole area?
Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim
>>> ---
>>> v2 from v1:
>>> - clean up
>>>
>>> mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c | 53 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
>>> index 8bf128c..f2d55ad 100644
>>> --- a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
>>> +++ b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
>>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>>> #include
>>> #include
>>> #include
>>> +#include
>>> #ifndef ANDROID_WINDOWS_HOST
>>> #include
>>> #endif
>>> @@ -110,13 +111,61 @@ static int trim_device(int i)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static bool is_wiped_device(int i)
>>> +{
>>> +#ifdef WITH_ANDROID
>>> + struct device_info *dev = c.devices + i;
>>> + int fd = dev->fd;
>>> + char *buf, *zero_buf;
>>> + bool wiped = true;
>>> + int nblocks = 4096; /* 16MB size */
>>> + int j;
>>> +
>>> + buf = malloc(F2FS_BLKSIZE);
>>> + if (buf == NULL) {
>>> + MSG(1, "\tError: Malloc Failed for buf!!!\n");
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>> + zero_buf = calloc(1, F2FS_BLKSIZE);
>>> + if (zero_buf == NULL) {
>>> + MSG(1, "\tError: Calloc Failed for zero buf!!!\n");
>>> + free(buf);
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET) < 0) {
>>> + free(zero_buf);
>>> + free(buf);
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* check first n blocks */
>>> + for (j = 0; j < nblocks; j++) {
>>> + if (read(fd, buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE) != F2FS_BLKSIZE ||
>>> + memcmp(buf, zero_buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE)) {
>>> + wiped = false;
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + free(zero_buf);
>>> + free(buf);
>>> +
>>> + if (wiped)
>>> + MSG(0, "Info: Found all zeros in first %d blocks\n", nblocks);
>>> + return wiped;
>>> +#else
>>> + return false;
>>> +#endif
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> int f2fs_trim_devices(void)
>>> {
>>> int i;
>>>
>>> - for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++)
>>> - if (trim_device(i))
>>> + for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++) {
>>> + if (!is_wiped_device(i) && trim_device(i))
>>> return -1;
>>> + }
>>> c.trimmed = 1;
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
> .
>
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] mkfs.f2fs: check zeros in first 16MB for Android
On 08/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2019/8/9 23:12, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > We actually don't need to issue trim on entire disk by checking first
> > blocks having zeros.
>
> In heap mode, we locate node log header to tail end of device, should we
> consider to check block contain according to heap option?
I wanted to check F2FS metadata mainly.
>
> BTW, if we changed cp_ver whenever mkfs, why should we still issue trim to
> obsolete old data in node remained in image?
For simplicity. :P
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim
> > ---
> > v2 from v1:
> > - clean up
> >
> > mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c | 53 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> > index 8bf128c..f2d55ad 100644
> > --- a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> > +++ b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> > #include
> > #include
> > #include
> > +#include
> > #ifndef ANDROID_WINDOWS_HOST
> > #include
> > #endif
> > @@ -110,13 +111,61 @@ static int trim_device(int i)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static bool is_wiped_device(int i)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef WITH_ANDROID
> > + struct device_info *dev = c.devices + i;
> > + int fd = dev->fd;
> > + char *buf, *zero_buf;
> > + bool wiped = true;
> > + int nblocks = 4096; /* 16MB size */
> > + int j;
> > +
> > + buf = malloc(F2FS_BLKSIZE);
> > + if (buf == NULL) {
> > + MSG(1, "\tError: Malloc Failed for buf!!!\n");
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > + zero_buf = calloc(1, F2FS_BLKSIZE);
> > + if (zero_buf == NULL) {
> > + MSG(1, "\tError: Calloc Failed for zero buf!!!\n");
> > + free(buf);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET) < 0) {
> > + free(zero_buf);
> > + free(buf);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* check first n blocks */
> > + for (j = 0; j < nblocks; j++) {
> > + if (read(fd, buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE) != F2FS_BLKSIZE ||
> > + memcmp(buf, zero_buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE)) {
> > + wiped = false;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + free(zero_buf);
> > + free(buf);
> > +
> > + if (wiped)
> > + MSG(0, "Info: Found all zeros in first %d blocks\n", nblocks);
> > + return wiped;
> > +#else
> > + return false;
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> > int f2fs_trim_devices(void)
> > {
> > int i;
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++)
> > - if (trim_device(i))
> > + for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++) {
> > + if (!is_wiped_device(i) && trim_device(i))
> > return -1;
> > + }
> > c.trimmed = 1;
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] mkfs.f2fs: check zeros in first 16MB for Android
On 2019/8/9 23:39, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 08/10, Ju Hyung Park wrote:
>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what's the point of this?
>>
>> I thought flash chips skip erasing blocks if it's already erased to
>> preserve P/E cycles as much as possible.
>> All Android devices I had(various versions of eMMC and UFS) ran full range
>> block-level discards pretty fast too.
>
> Unfortunately, some of them are giving long delays on a bunch of unmap
> commands
> resulting in user janky issue.
Agreed, the performance completely depends on FTL implementation, some of them
perform very bad...
Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> 2019년 8월 10일 (토) 오전 12:13, Jaegeuk Kim 님이 작성:
>>
>>> We actually don't need to issue trim on entire disk by checking first
>>> blocks having zeros.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim
>>> ---
>>> v2 from v1:
>>> - clean up
>>>
>>> mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c | 53 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
>>> index 8bf128c..f2d55ad 100644
>>> --- a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
>>> +++ b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
>>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>>> #include
>>> #include
>>> #include
>>> +#include
>>> #ifndef ANDROID_WINDOWS_HOST
>>> #include
>>> #endif
>>> @@ -110,13 +111,61 @@ static int trim_device(int i)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static bool is_wiped_device(int i)
>>> +{
>>> +#ifdef WITH_ANDROID
>>> + struct device_info *dev = c.devices + i;
>>> + int fd = dev->fd;
>>> + char *buf, *zero_buf;
>>> + bool wiped = true;
>>> + int nblocks = 4096; /* 16MB size */
>>> + int j;
>>> +
>>> + buf = malloc(F2FS_BLKSIZE);
>>> + if (buf == NULL) {
>>> + MSG(1, "\tError: Malloc Failed for buf!!!\n");
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>> + zero_buf = calloc(1, F2FS_BLKSIZE);
>>> + if (zero_buf == NULL) {
>>> + MSG(1, "\tError: Calloc Failed for zero buf!!!\n");
>>> + free(buf);
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET) < 0) {
>>> + free(zero_buf);
>>> + free(buf);
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* check first n blocks */
>>> + for (j = 0; j < nblocks; j++) {
>>> + if (read(fd, buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE) != F2FS_BLKSIZE ||
>>> + memcmp(buf, zero_buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE)) {
>>> + wiped = false;
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + free(zero_buf);
>>> + free(buf);
>>> +
>>> + if (wiped)
>>> + MSG(0, "Info: Found all zeros in first %d blocks\n",
>>> nblocks);
>>> + return wiped;
>>> +#else
>>> + return false;
>>> +#endif
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> int f2fs_trim_devices(void)
>>> {
>>> int i;
>>>
>>> - for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++)
>>> - if (trim_device(i))
>>> + for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++) {
>>> + if (!is_wiped_device(i) && trim_device(i))
>>> return -1;
>>> + }
>>> c.trimmed = 1;
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> --
>>> 2.19.0.605.g01d371f741-goog
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>>>
>
>
> ___
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] mkfs.f2fs: check zeros in first 16MB for Android
On 2019/8/9 23:12, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> We actually don't need to issue trim on entire disk by checking first
> blocks having zeros.
In heap mode, we locate node log header to tail end of device, should we
consider to check block contain according to heap option?
BTW, if we changed cp_ver whenever mkfs, why should we still issue trim to
obsolete old data in node remained in image?
Thanks,
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim
> ---
> v2 from v1:
> - clean up
>
> mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c | 53 ++--
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> index 8bf128c..f2d55ad 100644
> --- a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> +++ b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> #ifndef ANDROID_WINDOWS_HOST
> #include
> #endif
> @@ -110,13 +111,61 @@ static int trim_device(int i)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static bool is_wiped_device(int i)
> +{
> +#ifdef WITH_ANDROID
> + struct device_info *dev = c.devices + i;
> + int fd = dev->fd;
> + char *buf, *zero_buf;
> + bool wiped = true;
> + int nblocks = 4096; /* 16MB size */
> + int j;
> +
> + buf = malloc(F2FS_BLKSIZE);
> + if (buf == NULL) {
> + MSG(1, "\tError: Malloc Failed for buf!!!\n");
> + return false;
> + }
> + zero_buf = calloc(1, F2FS_BLKSIZE);
> + if (zero_buf == NULL) {
> + MSG(1, "\tError: Calloc Failed for zero buf!!!\n");
> + free(buf);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + if (lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET) < 0) {
> + free(zero_buf);
> + free(buf);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + /* check first n blocks */
> + for (j = 0; j < nblocks; j++) {
> + if (read(fd, buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE) != F2FS_BLKSIZE ||
> + memcmp(buf, zero_buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE)) {
> + wiped = false;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + free(zero_buf);
> + free(buf);
> +
> + if (wiped)
> + MSG(0, "Info: Found all zeros in first %d blocks\n", nblocks);
> + return wiped;
> +#else
> + return false;
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> int f2fs_trim_devices(void)
> {
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++)
> - if (trim_device(i))
> + for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++) {
> + if (!is_wiped_device(i) && trim_device(i))
> return -1;
> + }
> c.trimmed = 1;
> return 0;
> }
>
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] mkfs.f2fs: check zeros in first 16MB for Android
On 08/10, Ju Hyung Park wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> Just out of curiosity, what's the point of this?
>
> I thought flash chips skip erasing blocks if it's already erased to
> preserve P/E cycles as much as possible.
> All Android devices I had(various versions of eMMC and UFS) ran full range
> block-level discards pretty fast too.
Unfortunately, some of them are giving long delays on a bunch of unmap commands
resulting in user janky issue.
>
> Thanks.
>
> 2019년 8월 10일 (토) 오전 12:13, Jaegeuk Kim 님이 작성:
>
> > We actually don't need to issue trim on entire disk by checking first
> > blocks having zeros.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim
> > ---
> > v2 from v1:
> > - clean up
> >
> > mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c | 53 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> > index 8bf128c..f2d55ad 100644
> > --- a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> > +++ b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
> > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> > #include
> > #include
> > #include
> > +#include
> > #ifndef ANDROID_WINDOWS_HOST
> > #include
> > #endif
> > @@ -110,13 +111,61 @@ static int trim_device(int i)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static bool is_wiped_device(int i)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef WITH_ANDROID
> > + struct device_info *dev = c.devices + i;
> > + int fd = dev->fd;
> > + char *buf, *zero_buf;
> > + bool wiped = true;
> > + int nblocks = 4096; /* 16MB size */
> > + int j;
> > +
> > + buf = malloc(F2FS_BLKSIZE);
> > + if (buf == NULL) {
> > + MSG(1, "\tError: Malloc Failed for buf!!!\n");
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > + zero_buf = calloc(1, F2FS_BLKSIZE);
> > + if (zero_buf == NULL) {
> > + MSG(1, "\tError: Calloc Failed for zero buf!!!\n");
> > + free(buf);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET) < 0) {
> > + free(zero_buf);
> > + free(buf);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* check first n blocks */
> > + for (j = 0; j < nblocks; j++) {
> > + if (read(fd, buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE) != F2FS_BLKSIZE ||
> > + memcmp(buf, zero_buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE)) {
> > + wiped = false;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + free(zero_buf);
> > + free(buf);
> > +
> > + if (wiped)
> > + MSG(0, "Info: Found all zeros in first %d blocks\n",
> > nblocks);
> > + return wiped;
> > +#else
> > + return false;
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> > int f2fs_trim_devices(void)
> > {
> > int i;
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++)
> > - if (trim_device(i))
> > + for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++) {
> > + if (!is_wiped_device(i) && trim_device(i))
> > return -1;
> > + }
> > c.trimmed = 1;
> > return 0;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.19.0.605.g01d371f741-goog
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> >
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] mkfs.f2fs: check zeros in first 16MB for Android
We actually don't need to issue trim on entire disk by checking first
blocks having zeros.
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim
---
v2 from v1:
- clean up
mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c | 53 ++--
1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
index 8bf128c..f2d55ad 100644
--- a/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
+++ b/mkfs/f2fs_format_utils.c
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
#include
#include
#include
+#include
#ifndef ANDROID_WINDOWS_HOST
#include
#endif
@@ -110,13 +111,61 @@ static int trim_device(int i)
return 0;
}
+static bool is_wiped_device(int i)
+{
+#ifdef WITH_ANDROID
+ struct device_info *dev = c.devices + i;
+ int fd = dev->fd;
+ char *buf, *zero_buf;
+ bool wiped = true;
+ int nblocks = 4096; /* 16MB size */
+ int j;
+
+ buf = malloc(F2FS_BLKSIZE);
+ if (buf == NULL) {
+ MSG(1, "\tError: Malloc Failed for buf!!!\n");
+ return false;
+ }
+ zero_buf = calloc(1, F2FS_BLKSIZE);
+ if (zero_buf == NULL) {
+ MSG(1, "\tError: Calloc Failed for zero buf!!!\n");
+ free(buf);
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ if (lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET) < 0) {
+ free(zero_buf);
+ free(buf);
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ /* check first n blocks */
+ for (j = 0; j < nblocks; j++) {
+ if (read(fd, buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE) != F2FS_BLKSIZE ||
+ memcmp(buf, zero_buf, F2FS_BLKSIZE)) {
+ wiped = false;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ free(zero_buf);
+ free(buf);
+
+ if (wiped)
+ MSG(0, "Info: Found all zeros in first %d blocks\n", nblocks);
+ return wiped;
+#else
+ return false;
+#endif
+}
+
int f2fs_trim_devices(void)
{
int i;
- for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++)
- if (trim_device(i))
+ for (i = 0; i < c.ndevs; i++) {
+ if (!is_wiped_device(i) && trim_device(i))
return -1;
+ }
c.trimmed = 1;
return 0;
}
--
2.19.0.605.g01d371f741-goog
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
