On Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 10:17 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 1/4/2022 11:14 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > This looks ok. Does it impact any array declaration that I missed? I'm > just > > worrying about changes in stack consumption. > > Not that I could see. A buffer allocated on the heap is now bigger to hold > the > larger data block and that has been adjusted. >
Ok. That's there only issue I had. > I have an application where the JFFS slowed down from 4.11 to 6 and the > only > difference I could see was 6 had a lot more, I would say 50%, small blocks > being > written to the flash device over 4.11. This change makes using untar on > JFFS > much more efficient. > That's odd by itself to have more smaller blocks but great to get the performance boost. > > Chris > > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 6:26 PM <chr...@rtems.org <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> > wrote: > > > > From: Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> > > > > - A larger block size lets files systems work better. On JFFS > > a 512 byte compressed block means lots of small flash updates > > > > Closes #4635 > > --- > > cpukit/libmisc/untar/untar.c | 53 > ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/cpukit/libmisc/untar/untar.c > b/cpukit/libmisc/untar/untar.c > > index 7bc1fff02a..fff737db68 100644 > > --- a/cpukit/libmisc/untar/untar.c > > +++ b/cpukit/libmisc/untar/untar.c > > @@ -84,6 +84,14 @@ > > > > #define MAX_NAME_FIELD_SIZE 99 > > > > +#define TAR_BLOCK_SIZE 512 > > +#define TAR_BLOCK_SIZE_MASK (TAR_BLOCK_SIZE - 1) > > + > > +/* > > + * Number of blocks read or written > > + */ > > +#define TAR_WORK_BLOCKS 16 > > + > > static int _rtems_tar_header_checksum(const char *bufr); > > > > /* > > @@ -240,7 +248,8 @@ Untar_ProcessHeader( > > } else if (ctx->linkflag == REGTYPE) { > > rtems_printf(ctx->printer, "untar: file: %s (s:%lu,m:%04lo)\n", > > ctx->file_path, ctx->file_size, ctx->mode); > > - ctx->nblocks = (((ctx->file_size) + 511) & ~511) / 512; > > + ctx->nblocks = > > + (((ctx->file_size) + TAR_BLOCK_SIZE_MASK) & > ~TAR_BLOCK_SIZE_MASK) / > > TAR_BLOCK_SIZE; > > } else if (ctx->linkflag == DIRTYPE) { > > rtems_printf(ctx->printer, "untar: dir: %s\n", ctx->file_path); > > r = mkdir(ctx->file_path, ctx->mode); > > @@ -311,14 +320,14 @@ Untar_FromMemory_Print( > > > > ptr = 0; > > while (true) { > > - if (ptr + 512 > size) { > > + if (ptr + TAR_BLOCK_SIZE > size) { > > retval = UNTAR_SUCCESSFUL; > > break; > > } > > > > /* Read the header */ > > bufr = &tar_ptr[ptr]; > > - ptr += 512; > > + ptr += TAR_BLOCK_SIZE; > > > > retval = Untar_ProcessHeader(&ctx, bufr); > > > > @@ -329,27 +338,26 @@ Untar_FromMemory_Print( > > if ((fd = open(ctx.file_path, > > O_TRUNC | O_CREAT | O_WRONLY, ctx.mode)) == > -1) { > > Print_Error(printer, "open", ctx.file_path); > > - ptr += 512 * ctx.nblocks; > > + ptr += TAR_BLOCK_SIZE * ctx.nblocks; > > } else { > > - unsigned long sizeToGo = ctx.file_size; > > - ssize_t len; > > - ssize_t i; > > - ssize_t n; > > - > > /* > > * Read out the data. There are nblocks of data where > nblocks is the > > * file_size rounded to the nearest 512-byte boundary. > > */ > > - for (i = 0; i < ctx.nblocks; i++) { > > - len = ((sizeToGo < 512L) ? (sizeToGo) : (512L)); > > - n = write(fd, &tar_ptr[ptr], len); > > + ssize_t file_size = ctx.file_size; > > + size_t blocks = ctx.nblocks; > > + while (blocks > 0) { > > + size_t blks = blocks > TAR_WORK_BLOCKS ? TAR_WORK_BLOCKS > : blocks; > > + ssize_t len = MIN(blks * TAR_BLOCK_SIZE, file_size); > > + ssize_t n = write(fd, &tar_ptr[ptr], len); > > if (n != len) { > > Print_Error(printer, "write", ctx.file_path); > > retval = UNTAR_FAIL; > > break; > > } > > - ptr += 512; > > - sizeToGo -= n; > > + ptr += blks * TAR_BLOCK_SIZE; > > + file_size -= n; > > + blocks -= blks; > > } > > close(fd); > > } > > @@ -419,7 +427,6 @@ Untar_FromFile_Print( > > char *bufr; > > ssize_t n; > > int retval; > > - unsigned long i; > > char buf[UNTAR_FILE_NAME_SIZE]; > > Untar_HeaderContext ctx; > > > > @@ -429,7 +436,7 @@ Untar_FromFile_Print( > > return UNTAR_FAIL; > > } > > > > - bufr = (char *)malloc(512); > > + bufr = (char *)malloc(TAR_WORK_BLOCKS * TAR_BLOCK_SIZE); > > if (bufr == NULL) { > > close(fd); > > return(UNTAR_FAIL); > > @@ -442,7 +449,7 @@ Untar_FromFile_Print( > > while (1) { > > /* Read the header */ > > /* If the header read fails, we just consider it the end of the > tarfile. */ > > - if ((n = read(fd, bufr, 512)) != 512) { > > + if ((n = read(fd, bufr, TAR_BLOCK_SIZE)) != TAR_BLOCK_SIZE) { > > break; > > } > > > > @@ -464,10 +471,16 @@ Untar_FromFile_Print( > > retval = UNTAR_FAIL; > > break; > > } else { > > - for (i = 0; i < ctx.nblocks; i++) { > > - n = read(fd, bufr, 512); > > - n = MIN(n, ctx.file_size - (i * 512UL)); > > + ssize_t file_size = ctx.file_size; > > + size_t blocks = ctx.nblocks; > > + while (blocks > 0) { > > + size_t blks = blocks > TAR_WORK_BLOCKS ? TAR_WORK_BLOCKS > : blocks; > > + size_t bytes = blks * TAR_BLOCK_SIZE; > > + n = read(fd, bufr, bytes); > > + n = MIN(n, file_size); > > (void) write(out_fd, bufr, n); > > + file_size -= n; > > + blocks -= blks; > > } > > close(out_fd); > > } > > -- > > 2.24.1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org> > > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel> > > > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
