The attempt to implement in-rbyd data slicing, being lazily coalesced
during rbyd compaction, failed pretty much completely.
Slicing is a very enticing write strategy, getting both minimal overhead
post-compaction and fast random write speeds, but the idea has some
fundamental conflicts with how we play out attrs post-compaction.
This idea might work in a more powerful filesystem, but brings back the
need to simulate rbyds in RAM, which is something I really don't want to
do (complex, bug-prone, likely adds code cost, may not even be tractable).
So, third time's the charm?
---
This new write strategy writes only datas and bptrs, and avoids dagging
by completely rewriting any regions of data larger than a configurable
crystallization threshold.
This loses most of the benefits of data crystallization, random writes
will now usually need to rewrite a full block, but as a tradeoff our
data at rest is always stored with optimal overhead.
And at least data crystallization still saves space when our data isn't
block aligned, or in sparse files. From reading up on some other
filesystem designs it seems this is a desirable optimization sometimes
referred to as "tail-packing" or "block suballocation"
Some other changes from just having more time to think about the
problem:
1. Instead of scanning to figure out our current crystal size, we can
use a simple heuristic of 1. look up left block, 2. look up right
block, 3. assume any data between these blocks contribute to our
current crystal.
This is just a heuristic, so worst case you write the first and last
byte of a block which is enough to trigger compaction into a block.
But on the plus side this avoids issues with small holes preventing
blocks from being formed.
This approach brings the number of btree lookups down from
O(crystallize_size) to 2.
2. I've gone ahead and dropped the previous scheme of coalesce_size
+ fragment_size and instead adopted a single fragment_size that
controls the size of, well, fragments, i.e. data elements stored
directly in trees.
This affects both the inlined shrub as well as fragments stored in
the inner nodes of the btree. I believe it's very similar to what is
often called "pages" in logging filesystems, though I'm going to
avoid that term for now because it's a bit overloaded.
Previously, neighboring writes that, when combined, would exceed our
coalesce_size, they just weren't combined. Now they are combined up
to our fragment size, potentially splitting the right fragment.
Before (fragment_size=8):
.---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---.
| 8 bytes |
'---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---'
+
.---+---+---+---+---.
| 5 bytes |
'---+---+---+---+---'
=
.---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---.
| 5 bytes | 5 bytes |
'---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---'
After:
.---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---.
| 8 bytes |
'---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---'
+
.---+---+---+---+---.
| 5 bytes |
'---+---+---+---+---'
=
.---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---.
| 8 bytes |2 bytes|
'---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---'
This leads to better fragment alignment (much like our block
strategy), and minimizes tree overhead.
Any neighboring data to the right is only coalesced if it fits in the
current fragment, or would be rewritten (carved) anyways, to avoid
unnecessary data rewriting.
For example (fragment_size=8):
.---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---.
| 6 bytes | 6 bytes |2 bytes|
'---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---'
+
.---+---+---+---+---.
| 5 bytes |
'---+---+---+---+---'
=
.---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---.
| 8 bytes | 4 bytes |2 bytes|
'---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---'
Other than these changes this commit is mostly a bunch of carveshrub
rewriting again, which continues to be nuanced and annoying to get
bug free.
littlefs
A little fail-safe filesystem designed for microcontrollers.
| | | .---._____
.-----. | |
--|o |---| littlefs |
--| |---| |
'-----' '----------'
| | |
Power-loss resilience - littlefs is designed to handle random power failures. All file operations have strong copy-on-write guarantees and if power is lost the filesystem will fall back to the last known good state.
Dynamic wear leveling - littlefs is designed with flash in mind, and provides wear leveling over dynamic blocks. Additionally, littlefs can detect bad blocks and work around them.
Bounded RAM/ROM - littlefs is designed to work with a small amount of memory. RAM usage is strictly bounded, which means RAM consumption does not change as the filesystem grows. The filesystem contains no unbounded recursion and dynamic memory is limited to configurable buffers that can be provided statically.
Example
Here's a simple example that updates a file named boot_count every time
main runs. The program can be interrupted at any time without losing track
of how many times it has been booted and without corrupting the filesystem:
#include "lfs.h"
// variables used by the filesystem
lfs_t lfs;
lfs_file_t file;
// configuration of the filesystem is provided by this struct
const struct lfs_config cfg = {
// block device operations
.read = user_provided_block_device_read,
.prog = user_provided_block_device_prog,
.erase = user_provided_block_device_erase,
.sync = user_provided_block_device_sync,
// block device configuration
.read_size = 16,
.prog_size = 16,
.block_size = 4096,
.block_count = 128,
.cache_size = 16,
.lookahead_size = 16,
.block_cycles = 500,
};
// entry point
int main(void) {
// mount the filesystem
int err = lfs_mount(&lfs, &cfg);
// reformat if we can't mount the filesystem
// this should only happen on the first boot
if (err) {
lfs_format(&lfs, &cfg);
lfs_mount(&lfs, &cfg);
}
// read current count
uint32_t boot_count = 0;
lfs_file_open(&lfs, &file, "boot_count", LFS_O_RDWR | LFS_O_CREAT);
lfs_file_read(&lfs, &file, &boot_count, sizeof(boot_count));
// update boot count
boot_count += 1;
lfs_file_rewind(&lfs, &file);
lfs_file_write(&lfs, &file, &boot_count, sizeof(boot_count));
// remember the storage is not updated until the file is closed successfully
lfs_file_close(&lfs, &file);
// release any resources we were using
lfs_unmount(&lfs);
// print the boot count
printf("boot_count: %d\n", boot_count);
}
Usage
Detailed documentation (or at least as much detail as is currently available) can be found in the comments in lfs.h.
littlefs takes in a configuration structure that defines how the filesystem operates. The configuration struct provides the filesystem with the block device operations and dimensions, tweakable parameters that tradeoff memory usage for performance, and optional static buffers if the user wants to avoid dynamic memory.
The state of the littlefs is stored in the lfs_t type which is left up
to the user to allocate, allowing multiple filesystems to be in use
simultaneously. With the lfs_t and configuration struct, a user can
format a block device or mount the filesystem.
Once mounted, the littlefs provides a full set of POSIX-like file and directory functions, with the deviation that the allocation of filesystem structures must be provided by the user.
All POSIX operations, such as remove and rename, are atomic, even in event of power-loss. Additionally, file updates are not actually committed to the filesystem until sync or close is called on the file.
Other notes
Littlefs is written in C, and specifically should compile with any compiler
that conforms to the C99 standard.
All littlefs calls have the potential to return a negative error code. The
errors can be either one of those found in the enum lfs_error in
lfs.h, or an error returned by the user's block device operations.
In the configuration struct, the prog and erase function provided by the
user may return a LFS_ERR_CORRUPT error if the implementation already can
detect corrupt blocks. However, the wear leveling does not depend on the return
code of these functions, instead all data is read back and checked for
integrity.
If your storage caches writes, make sure that the provided sync function
flushes all the data to memory and ensures that the next read fetches the data
from memory, otherwise data integrity can not be guaranteed. If the write
function does not perform caching, and therefore each read or write call
hits the memory, the sync function can simply return 0.
Design
At a high level, littlefs is a block based filesystem that uses small logs to store metadata and larger copy-on-write (COW) structures to store file data.
In littlefs, these ingredients form a sort of two-layered cake, with the small logs (called metadata pairs) providing fast updates to metadata anywhere on storage, while the COW structures store file data compactly and without any wear amplification cost.
Both of these data structures are built out of blocks, which are fed by a common block allocator. By limiting the number of erases allowed on a block per allocation, the allocator provides dynamic wear leveling over the entire filesystem.
root
.--------.--------.
| A'| B'| |
| | |-> |
| | | |
'--------'--------'
.----' '--------------.
A v B v
.--------.--------. .--------.--------.
| C'| D'| | | E'|new| |
| | |-> | | | E'|-> |
| | | | | | | |
'--------'--------' '--------'--------'
.-' '--. | '------------------.
v v .-' v
.--------. .--------. v .--------.
| C | | D | .--------. write | new E |
| | | | | E | ==> | |
| | | | | | | |
'--------' '--------' | | '--------'
'--------' .-' |
.-' '-. .-------------|------'
v v v v
.--------. .--------. .--------.
| F | | G | | new F |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
'--------' '--------' '--------'
More details on how littlefs works can be found in DESIGN.md and SPEC.md.
-
DESIGN.md - A fully detailed dive into how littlefs works. I would suggest reading it as the tradeoffs at work are quite interesting.
-
SPEC.md - The on-disk specification of littlefs with all the nitty-gritty details. May be useful for tooling development.
Testing
The littlefs comes with a test suite designed to run on a PC using the
emulated block device found in the bd directory.
The tests assume a Linux environment and can be started with make:
make test
License
The littlefs is provided under the BSD-3-Clause license. See LICENSE.md for more information. Contributions to this project are accepted under the same license.
Individual files contain the following tag instead of the full license text.
SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
This enables machine processing of license information based on the SPDX License Identifiers that are here available: http://spdx.org/licenses/
Related projects
-
littlefs-fuse - A FUSE wrapper for littlefs. The project allows you to mount littlefs directly on a Linux machine. Can be useful for debugging littlefs if you have an SD card handy.
-
littlefs-js - A javascript wrapper for littlefs. I'm not sure why you would want this, but it is handy for demos. You can see it in action here.
-
littlefs-python - A Python wrapper for littlefs. The project allows you to create images of the filesystem on your PC. Check if littlefs will fit your needs, create images for a later download to the target memory or inspect the content of a binary image of the target memory.
-
mklfs - A command line tool built by the Lua RTOS guys for making littlefs images from a host PC. Supports Windows, Mac OS, and Linux.
-
Mbed OS - The easiest way to get started with littlefs is to jump into Mbed which already has block device drivers for most forms of embedded storage. littlefs is available in Mbed OS as the LittleFileSystem class.
-
SPIFFS - Another excellent embedded filesystem for NOR flash. As a more traditional logging filesystem with full static wear-leveling, SPIFFS will likely outperform littlefs on small memories such as the internal flash on microcontrollers.
-
Dhara - An interesting NAND flash translation layer designed for small MCUs. It offers static wear-leveling and power-resilience with only a fixed O(|address|) pointer structure stored on each block and in RAM.