Re: Rebuild mode for tail-pack layouts

Gao Xiang <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.ozlabs.lists.linux-erofs
Message-ID <af8GY7GTdIO4G829@debian>
On Sat, May 09, 2026 at 04:37:43PM +0800, Bingwu Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Monday, May 4, 2026 11:13:23 PM China Standard Time Gao Xiang wrote:
> > Hi xtex,
> > 
> > On 2026/4/30 20:09, xtex wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > In erofs_rebuild_write_blob_index (rebuild.c), only
> > > EROFS_INODE_CHUNK_BASED
> > > and FLAT_PLAIN are implemented, so when generating a metadata index with
> > > rebuild mode, the sources cannot use tail-pack nor inline data layout.
> > > However, disabling tail-packing can lead to great disk-space waste in many
> > > cases, especially when the file-system consists of a lot of small files.
> > > 
> > > Thus I attempted to implement FLAT_INLINE for it, only to realize that the
> > > current chunk entry formats can only represent physical addresses that are
> > > block-aligned while tail-pack extent is not.
> > > 
> > > I wonder what do you think about adding a new chunk entry format? And how
> > > should it be named?
> > > 
> > > I would suggest the following structure:
> > > struct erofs_inode_chunk_index_tp {
> > > 
> > > 	__le16 startblk_hi;	/* starting block number MSB */
> > > 	__le16 device_id;	/* back-end storage id (with bits masked)
> > > 
> > > */
> > > 
> > > 	__le32 startblk_lo;	/* starting block number of this chunk */
> > > 	/* new fields below */
> > > 	__le16 startblk_off;	/* starting block offset */
> > > 	__le16 reserved;
> > > 
> > > } __packed;
> > > The 16b offset should be enough unless we are to support block size > 64K.
> > > The reserved field is added for alignment.
> > 
> > Sorry about the late response.
> > 
> > Thanks for the question.
> > 
> > FLAT_INLINE can be used for index rebuilding, which can work with
> > uniaddr (or mapped_blkaddr) since the blkaddr will be mapped
> > into the relative address based on the blob starting with
> > mapped_blkaddr:
> > 
> > https://erofs.docs.kernel.org/en/latest/ondisk/chunked_format.html#device-ta
> > ble
> > 
> > But I agree the expression in the page above is a bit
> > ambigious through.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Gao Xiang
> > 
> > > Best wishes.
> 
> Sorry for the late response and thanks for your answer.
> 
> I am sorry about that I didn't get it.
> In __erofs_map_blocks:
> > map->m_pa = erofs_pos(sbi, startblk);
> and
> > #define erofs_pos(sbi, nr)      ((erofs_off_t)(nr) << (sbi)->blkszbits)
> It seems like that the mapped PA is always block-aligned? However, the last 
> chunk of inline data is not?

Yes, sorry I didn't express explicitly.

I mean the main data except the trailing inline data part
can be remapped into another external blob.

But inline data should be kept with the metadata; otherwise it
won't be called _inline data_ anymore.

Or do you have a case we have to redirect the inline data?

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> Best wishes.
> 
> -- 
> xtex (a.k.a. Bingwu Zhang) @ Sat, 09 May 2026 08:24:53 +0000
> 
> 
> 
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.