On Mon, 05.01.15 18:22, Hugo Mills (hugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:15:12PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Heya,
> >
> > I recently added some btrfs magic to systemd's machinectl/nspawn
> > tool. More specifically it can now show the disk usage of a container
> > that is stored in a btrfs subvolume. For that I made use of the btrfs
> > quota logic. To read the current disk usage of a subvolume I took
> > inspiration from btrfs-progs, most specifically the
> > BTRFS_IOC_TREE_SEARCH ioctl(). Unfortunately, documentation for the
> > ioctl seems to to be lacking, but there are some things about it I
> > fail to grok:
> >
> > What precisely are the semantics of the ioctl, regarding the search
> > key min/max values (the fields of "struct btrfs_ioctl_search_key")? I
> > kinda assumed that setting them would result in in only objects to be
> > returned that are within the min/max ranges. However, that appears not
> > to be the case. At least the min_offset/max_offset setting appears to
> > be ignored?
>
> This is an old argument. :)
>
> Keys have three parts, so it's plausible (but, in this case, wrong)
> to consider the space you're searching to be a 3-dimensional space of
> (object, type, offset), which seems to be what you're expecting. A
> min, max pair would then define an oblong subset of the keyspace from
> which to retrieve keys.
>
> However, that's not actually what's happening. Keys are indexed
> within their tree(s) by a concatenation of the items in the key. A
> key, therefore, should be thought of as a single 136-bit integer, and
> the keys are lexically ordered, (object||type||offset), where "||" is
> the concatenation operator. You get every key _lexically ordered_
> between the min and max values. This is a superset of the
> 3-dimensional results above.
Ah, I see. Makes sense.
I figure the comments in btrfs.h next to "struct
btrfs_ioctl_search_key" could use some updating in this regard. They
pretty explicitly suggest that the 3 axis were independent and each
eleent individually would be between the respective min/max when
returning...
Ideally the structure would just have two fields called "max", and
"min" or so, of type btrfs_disk_key, right? In that case I figure the
behaviour would have been clear. It's particular confusing that the
disk key fields appear in a different order than otherwise used and
with the min_transid+max_transid in the middle...
Which brings me to my question: how does {min|max}_transid affect the
search result? Is this axis orthogonal or is it neither?
Thanks for the explanations!
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
