On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:23:53AM +0200, Ruben Porras wrote:
> Am Montag, den 04.06.2007, 10:41 +0200 schrieb Iustin Pop:
> > Good to know. If there is at least more documentation about the
> > internals, I could try to find some time to work on this again.
> there is now a document explaining the XFS on disk format  and some
> presentations for training courses, I think none of this were available
> at the time you made the first try. Although they are not enough for our
Yes, just yesterday I found the document and it helps.
> > My suggestion would be to start implementing these steps in reverse. 4)
> > is the most important as it touches the entire FS. If 4) is working
> > correctly, then 1) would be simpler (I think)
> Why do you think that 1) would be simpler after 4)? For what I
> understand, they are independent.
Not after that in the cronological sense, but in the importance part.
Yes, it was a bad choice of words.
> 3) worries me, if walking the entire filesystem is needed, it want
> Since I don't know yet the xfs code I would like to begin with 1), I see
> it independent from the other parts, and I can then learn more about the
> transactions, allocators, and walking through the xfs structures. As you
> did 4) one time, maybe you could try with this part of the problem if
> you find the needed time, taking David's suggestions into account.
I took a look at both items since this discussion started. And honestly,
I think 1) is harder that 4), so you're welcome to work on it :) The
points that make it harder is that, per David's suggestion, there needs
- define two new transaction types
- define two new ioctls
- update the ondisk-format (!), if we want persistence of these flags;
luckily, there are two spare fields in the AGF structure.
- check the list of allocation functions that allocate space from the
I did some preliminary work on this but just a little.
I think that after the weekend I'll send an updated patch of 4). I have
one working now with the current CVS tree, just that it's still ugly and
Open questions (re. point 4):
- the filesystem document says the agf->agf_btreeblks is held only in
case we have an extended flag active for the filesystem
(XFS_SB_VERSION2_LAZYSBCOUNTBIT); is this true? without this, I'm not
sure how to calculate this number of blocks nicely
- or can I assume that an empty AG will *always* have agf_levels = 1
for both Btrees, so there are no extra blocks actually used for the
btrees (except for the two reserved ones at the beggining of the AG
- can I assume that an AG with agi->icount == agi->ifree == 0 will have
no blocks used for the inode btrees (logically yes, but I'm not sure)