From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94EEBC433FE for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:55:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237188AbiKWNzr (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2022 08:55:47 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45324 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236497AbiKWNz1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2022 08:55:27 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x644.google.com (mail-pl1-x644.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::644]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E22E674CDE; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 05:49:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x644.google.com with SMTP id io19so16681649plb.8; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 05:49:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :cc:to:reply-to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FLcFo0lu8cqSfknNhs9/1pJi0QRuj3g0hxJQsndQlGA=; b=KHfLPjpV0roQegJX4QvO3Ynva2lRROad+mFpIniveQxffZ9aI3aLoFpbUpcRr6h6JO j8HMPT6dKMo8dMpzBhrn4iFct88bpL5bAyy2ZqSoGv0SEeD1zCUD1J+JmgGzqrJP67xL tUCIt57AjPMniQsrnfpg+MasYt6sAYDKh8APVhoCnzhlVmAqtX3C8Xrc38Do8ClEZbjX poyON2tfOMYGPSRklNHIUiAYxHc4p2wnF/jCM0mv07qfK17Jz5KqlG8SFCzKZWEewCDx CJqXpCu0RJrs5Rz4nJauV/OIFsVKk+VE8rKCpwEk7Z6KfkdfbFTdjedsyPj8zJW/1O86 /znQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :cc:to:reply-to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FLcFo0lu8cqSfknNhs9/1pJi0QRuj3g0hxJQsndQlGA=; b=Ef7SuKAHFsikMhWS+sGHoZ1fn1B4HuaGCKP0zrVRlm8z21Sn7tWg4A9ivqngGs5+sR q6cFwKfzQjF+NVbVotYrnnv17dNrfwJoOqZRxXVEL/wmVaAmUiClwOukaMUfgtU6niDF e4IW4cK6Cb1RVvtV19toznYU/1/uaE1Q7R7bopGbQ4ACfjIJbQpvww8BJEpiJJqr0DNc CrdjFbn43PV1rQO2u4Y+gmJ92i47eaSuJGEE1Zrq+cB1xpOrkdenDD2DW8xXFfL+k1DY 5Ecy6xidoSS2c7UZu7AA4QRHmS3pr/7TxWTiqSIFJHHf/XO7LGPJQyXtAnsl+23js9hE BnrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnDxdLN7jPEkVRzU21ZhDpTTdJ7kK90GMbzsrlW52DSUW9rmkwW yZgkq1KlSq9zhncEHCpmgPs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5ZrmKgsvp+pzyLxubw5UrD4ayLcud2hb3+Ri6LNiY4I8S9SWhn2NY//Jr/7bHrowlrp+4/Ow== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:70c5:b0:218:985d:25a0 with SMTP id a5-20020a17090a70c500b00218985d25a0mr21576850pjm.168.1669211395444; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 05:49:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.18.246.94] ([1.242.215.113]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ij27-20020a170902ab5b00b001885d15e3c1sm14246884plb.26.2022.11.23.05.49.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Nov 2022 05:49:55 -0800 (PST) From: Sungjong Seo X-Google-Original-From: Sungjong Seo Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 22:49:47 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] exfat: reduce the size of exfat_entry_set_cache Reply-To: sj1557.seo@samsung.com To: "Yuezhang.Mo@sony.com" , Namjae Jeon Cc: linux-kernel , linux-fsdevel , "Andy.Wu@sony.com" , "Wataru.Aoyama@sony.com" , Sungjong Seo References: Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Yuezhang Mo, > In normal, there are 19 directory entries at most for a file or > a directory. > - A file directory entry > - A stream extension directory entry > - 1~17 file name directory entry > > So the directory entries are in 3 sectors at most, it is enough > for struct exfat_entry_set_cache to pre-allocate 3 bh. > > This commit changes the size of struct exfat_entry_set_cache as: > > Before After > 32-bit system 88 32 bytes > 64-bit system 168 48 bytes > > Signed-off-by: Yuezhang Mo > Reviewed-by: Andy Wu > Reviewed-by: Aoyama Wataru > --- > fs/exfat/exfat_fs.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/exfat/exfat_fs.h b/fs/exfat/exfat_fs.h > index a8f8eee4937c..7d2493cda5d8 100644 > --- a/fs/exfat/exfat_fs.h > +++ b/fs/exfat/exfat_fs.h > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > > #define EXFAT_ROOT_INO 1 > > @@ -41,6 +42,14 @@ enum { > #define ES_2_ENTRIES 2 > #define ES_ALL_ENTRIES 0 > > +#define ES_FILE_ENTRY 0 > +#define ES_STREAM_ENTRY 1 > +#define ES_FIRST_FILENAME_ENTRY 2 New ES_ definitions seem to be an index in an entry set. However, this is confusing with definitions for specifying the range used when obtaining an entry set, such as ES_2_ENTRIES or ES_ALL_ENTRIES. Therefore, it would be better to use ES_IDX_ instead of ES_ to distinguish names such as ES_IDX_FILE, ES_IDX_STREAM and so on. (If you can think of a better prefix, it doesn't have to be ES_IDX_) > +#define EXFAT_FILENAME_ENTRY_NUM(name_len) \ > + DIV_ROUND_UP(name_len, EXFAT_FILE_NAME_LEN) > +#define ES_LAST_FILENAME_ENTRY(name_len) \ > + (ES_FIRST_FILENAME_ENTRY + EXFAT_FILENAME_ENTRY_NUM(name_len)) > + As with the newly defined ES_ value above, it makes sense for the ES_LAST_FILENAME_ENTRY() MACRO to return the index of the last filename entry. So let's subtract 1 from the current MACRO. > #define DIR_DELETED 0xFFFF0321 > > /* type values */ > @@ -68,9 +77,6 @@ enum { > #define MAX_NAME_LENGTH 255 /* max len of file name excluding NULL */ > #define MAX_VFSNAME_BUF_SIZE ((MAX_NAME_LENGTH + 1) * MAX_CHARSET_SIZE) > > -/* Enough size to hold 256 dentry (even 512 Byte sector) */ > -#define DIR_CACHE_SIZE (256*sizeof(struct exfat_dentry)/512+1) > - > #define EXFAT_HINT_NONE -1 > #define EXFAT_MIN_SUBDIR 2 > > @@ -125,6 +131,16 @@ enum { > #define BITS_PER_BYTE_MASK 0x7 > #define IGNORED_BITS_REMAINED(clu, clu_base) ((1 << ((clu) - (clu_base))) - 1) > > +/* 19 entries = 1 file entry + 1 stream entry + 17 filename entries */ > +#define ES_MAX_ENTRY_NUM ES_LAST_FILENAME_ENTRY(MAX_NAME_LENGTH) Of course, it needs to add 1 here. > + > +/* > + * 19 entries x 32 bytes/entry = 608 bytes. > + * The 608 bytes are in 3 sectors at most (even 512 Byte sector). > + */ > +#define DIR_CACHE_SIZE \ > + (DIV_ROUND_UP(EXFAT_DEN_TO_B(ES_MAX_ENTRY_NUM), SECTOR_SIZE) + 1) > + > struct exfat_dentry_namebuf { > char *lfn; > int lfnbuf_len; /* usually MAX_UNINAME_BUF_SIZE */ > @@ -166,11 +182,11 @@ struct exfat_hint { > > struct exfat_entry_set_cache { > struct super_block *sb; > - bool modified; > unsigned int start_off; > int num_bh; > struct buffer_head *bh[DIR_CACHE_SIZE]; > unsigned int num_entries; > + bool modified; > }; > > struct exfat_dir_entry {