So now, instead of one data type trying to do everything, we have two:
1. lfsr_data_t - Readable data, either in-RAM or on-disk
2. lfsr_cat_t - Concatenated data for progging, may be either a simple
in-RAM buffer or an indirect list of lfsr_data_ts
This comes from an observation that most lfsr_attr_t datas were either
simple buffers, NULL, or required the indirect concatenated datas
anyways (concatendated file fragments). By separating lfsr_cat_t and
lfsr_data_t, maybe we can save RAM in lfsr_attr_t by not needing the
three words necessary for the less-common disk references.
Note the interesting tradeoff:
Simple in-RAM buffers/NULL decrease by 1 word (4 bytes):
lfsr_data_t lfsr_cat_t
.---+---+---+---. .---+---+---+---.
|0| size | => |0| size |
+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+
| ptr | | ptr |
+---+---+---+---+ '---+---+---+---'
| (unused) |
'---+---+---+---'
'-------.-------' '-------.-------'
12 bytes 8 bytes
While on-disk references increase by 2 words (8 bytes):
lfsr_data_t lfsr_cat_t lfsr_data_t
.---+---+---+---. .---+---+---+---. .---+---+---+---.
|1| size | => |1| size | .>|1| size |
+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+ | +---+---+---+---+
| block | | ptr -------' | block |
+---+---+---+---+ '---+---+---+---' +---+---+---+---+
| off | | off |
'---+---+---+---' '---+---+---+---'
'-------.-------' '-----------------.-----------------'
12 bytes 20 bytes
Unless the on-disk references also need concatenation, in which case
this still saves 1 word (4 bytes).
Note I'm not sure this type split is generalizable to other systems. In
littlefs we can't use recursion, so progging concatenated datas already
required two nested functions, and we happen to never need to read
concatenated data, allowing us to completely omit that functionality. In
other systems, where maybe disk-reference attrs are more common, this
tradeoff may not make sense.
Some other things to note:
- We're also losing the inlined-data representation in this change.
Unfortunately earlier lfsr_data_t measurements showed that this didn't
really contribute much. It saved RAM in name attrs but added quite a
bit of complexity to lfsr_data_t operations.
- By separating simple/cat and RAM/disk, we reduce the abused size bits
from 2-bits down to 1-bit. This doesn't really matter for our current
31/28-bit littlefs impl, but is nice in that it reenables the
theoretical 31/31-bit littlefs impl without in-RAM data-structure
changes.
There are a few temporary hacks that need to be figured out, but this is
already showing code/stack savings. Which is fascinating considering the
new lfsr_cat_* functions and increased temporary allocations:
code stack
before: 33856 2824
after: 33812 (-0.1%) 2800 (-0.8%)
Christopher Haster
88a098c616