Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 Jul 2023 15:05:04 +0800 | From | Gao Xiang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] erofs: boost negative xattr lookup with bloom filter |
| |
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 06:49:23PM +0800, Jingbo Xu wrote: > Optimise the negative xattr lookup with bloom filter. > > The bit value for the bloom filter map has a reverse semantics for > compatibility. That is, the bit value of 0 indicates existence, while > the bit value of 1 indicates the absence of corresponding xattr. > > The initial version is _only_ enabled when xattr_filter_reserved is > zero. The filter map internals may change in the future, in which case > the reserved flag will be set non-zero and we don't need bothering the > compatible bits again at that time. For now disable the optimization if > this reserved flag is non-zero. > > Signed-off-by: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com> > --- > fs/erofs/Kconfig | 1 + > fs/erofs/internal.h | 3 +++ > fs/erofs/super.c | 1 + > fs/erofs/xattr.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/erofs/Kconfig b/fs/erofs/Kconfig > index f259d92c9720..f49669def828 100644 > --- a/fs/erofs/Kconfig > +++ b/fs/erofs/Kconfig > @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ config EROFS_FS_DEBUG > config EROFS_FS_XATTR > bool "EROFS extended attributes" > depends on EROFS_FS > + select XXHASH > default y > help > Extended attributes are name:value pairs associated with inodes by > diff --git a/fs/erofs/internal.h b/fs/erofs/internal.h > index 36e32fa542f0..3c1f89d8421b 100644 > --- a/fs/erofs/internal.h > +++ b/fs/erofs/internal.h > @@ -151,6 +151,7 @@ struct erofs_sb_info { > u32 xattr_prefix_start; > u8 xattr_prefix_count; > struct erofs_xattr_prefix_item *xattr_prefixes; > + unsigned int xattr_filter_reserved; > #endif > u16 device_id_mask; /* valid bits of device id to be used */ > > @@ -251,6 +252,7 @@ EROFS_FEATURE_FUNCS(fragments, incompat, INCOMPAT_FRAGMENTS) > EROFS_FEATURE_FUNCS(dedupe, incompat, INCOMPAT_DEDUPE) > EROFS_FEATURE_FUNCS(xattr_prefixes, incompat, INCOMPAT_XATTR_PREFIXES) > EROFS_FEATURE_FUNCS(sb_chksum, compat, COMPAT_SB_CHKSUM) > +EROFS_FEATURE_FUNCS(xattr_filter, compat, COMPAT_XATTR_FILTER) > > /* atomic flag definitions */ > #define EROFS_I_EA_INITED_BIT 0 > @@ -270,6 +272,7 @@ struct erofs_inode { > unsigned char inode_isize; > unsigned int xattr_isize; > > + unsigned int xattr_name_filter; > unsigned int xattr_shared_count; > unsigned int *xattr_shared_xattrs; > > diff --git a/fs/erofs/super.c b/fs/erofs/super.c > index 9d6a3c6158bd..72122323300e 100644 > --- a/fs/erofs/super.c > +++ b/fs/erofs/super.c > @@ -388,6 +388,7 @@ static int erofs_read_superblock(struct super_block *sb) > sbi->xattr_blkaddr = le32_to_cpu(dsb->xattr_blkaddr); > sbi->xattr_prefix_start = le32_to_cpu(dsb->xattr_prefix_start); > sbi->xattr_prefix_count = dsb->xattr_prefix_count; > + sbi->xattr_filter_reserved = dsb->xattr_filter_reserved; > #endif > sbi->islotbits = ilog2(sizeof(struct erofs_inode_compact)); > sbi->root_nid = le16_to_cpu(dsb->root_nid); > diff --git a/fs/erofs/xattr.c b/fs/erofs/xattr.c > index 40178b6e0688..e9b9ed6b28d2 100644 > --- a/fs/erofs/xattr.c > +++ b/fs/erofs/xattr.c > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ > * Copyright (C) 2021-2022, Alibaba Cloud > */ > #include <linux/security.h> > +#include <linux/xxhash.h> > #include "xattr.h" > > struct erofs_xattr_iter { > @@ -87,6 +88,7 @@ static int erofs_init_inode_xattrs(struct inode *inode) > } > > ih = it.kaddr + erofs_blkoff(sb, it.pos); > + vi->xattr_name_filter = le32_to_cpu(ih->h_name_filter); > vi->xattr_shared_count = ih->h_shared_count; > vi->xattr_shared_xattrs = kmalloc_array(vi->xattr_shared_count, > sizeof(uint), GFP_KERNEL); > @@ -392,7 +394,10 @@ int erofs_getxattr(struct inode *inode, int index, const char *name, > void *buffer, size_t buffer_size) > { > int ret; > + uint32_t hashbit;
Why using `uint32_t` here rather than `unsigned int`? We don't use `uint32_t` in the kernel codebase.
Thanks, Gao Xiang
| |