Since we already need all the machinery to track ck info for ckparity, I
figured we might as well implement a full ckcksums option as well.
Ckcksums closes the checksum-read-hole by reading enough data to check a
relevant checksum on ever read, even if this ends up being significantly
more data than the initial request. This should always detect detectable
bit-errors, even if they occur between consecutive reads.
If this sounds naive, that's because it is. Performance will be awful.
To be clear, ckcksums should probably never be used in production. I
can't think of a use case that isn't better handled by either ECC in the
block device or the future-planned ckredund feature. Just look at the
runtime complexities:
small-reads rbyd-lookup rbyd-compaction
ckcksums: O(b^2) O(b log b) O(b^2 log b)
ckredund*: O(log_b(n) + xb) O(log b) O(b log b)
eccbd*: O(b) O(log b) O(b log b)
* theoretical
We've already seen that O(b^2) compactions turns a performance problem
into a tractability problem, so I think O(b^2 log b) compactions will be
a bit too much for most applications.
We can already seen this in our test_ck_ckcksums_* tests (which do pass
by the way!). Compare to test_ck_ckprogs_*, which is basically the same
set of tests:
test_ck_ckprogs_*: 6.08s
test_ck_ckcksums_*: 64.88s
Or consider test_rbyd with/without ckcksums:
test_rbyd: 12.21s
test_rbyd+ckcksums: 389.94s
Still, ckcksums is an interesting proof-of-concept, and does manage to
close the checksum-read-hole.
---
Like ckprogs/ckfetches/ckparity/etc, ckcksums is an opt-in feature,
requiring both 1. defining LFS_CKCKSUMS and 2. passing LFS_M_CKCKSUMS at
mount time.
Like ckparity, ckcksums requires a significant code and stack increase
to track ck info in lfsr_data_t:
code stack
before: 36416 2616
yes-ckcksums: 38872 (+6.7%) 3176 (+21.4%)
no-ckcksums: 36416 (+0.0%) 2616 (+0.0%)
It's interesting to note how this compares to all of the current
ck-modes, though each has their own set of tradeoffs:
code stack
default: 36416 2616
ckprogs: 36468 (+0.1%) 2616 (+0.0%)
ckfetches: 36666 (+0.7%) 2648 (+1.2%)
ckparity: 37996 (+4.3%) 3040 (+16.2%)
ckcksums: 38872 (+6.7%) 3176 (+21.4%)
---
Note that even though ckcksums is opt-in, it may still be worth removing
from the codebase in the future, for a couple reasons:
- Every feature, even if unused, adds developer/maintenance burden.
- Ck info is particularly messy with how it interacts with all
lfsr_data_t APIs. Though getting rid of ck info would also require
getting rid of ckparity.
- It's possible for a user to see ckcksums in the codebase,
misunderstand its tradeoffs, enable it, and get the impression that
littlefs itself is just unusably slow.
Christopher Haster
2f11fa71f4