From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81B879228E for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:26:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 577C41161F for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:26:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:26:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7FF2D463EE for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:26:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46483c00-25e8-4980-a81e-1fbe0ef9fcdf@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:26:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= References: <20240328123707.336951-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20240328123707.336951-39-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <1712235368.4ka0m21w6d.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <1712235368.4ka0m21w6d.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.031 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH v3 proxmox-backup 38/58] upload stream: impl reused chunk injector X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 10:26:13 -0000 On 4/4/24 16:24, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > > but I'd like the following even better, since it allows us to get rid of > the buffer altogether: > > fn poll_next(self: Pin<&mut Self>, cx: &mut Context) -> Poll> { > let mut this = self.project(); > > let mut injections = this.injection_queue.lock().unwrap(); > > // check whether we have something to inject > if let Some(inject) = injections.pop_front() { > let offset = this.stream_len.load(Ordering::SeqCst) as u64; > > if inject.boundary == offset { > // inject now > let mut chunks = Vec::new(); > let mut csum = this.index_csum.lock().unwrap(); > > // account for injected chunks > for chunk in inject.chunks { > let offset = this > .stream_len > .fetch_add(chunk.size() as usize, Ordering::SeqCst) > as u64; > this.reused_len > .fetch_add(chunk.size() as usize, Ordering::SeqCst); > let digest = chunk.digest(); > chunks.push((offset, digest)); > let end_offset = offset + chunk.size(); > csum.update(&end_offset.to_le_bytes()); > csum.update(&digest); > } > let chunk_info = InjectedChunksInfo::Known(chunks); > return Poll::Ready(Some(Ok(chunk_info))); > } else if inject.boundary < offset { > // incoming new chunks and injections didn't line up? > return Poll::Ready(Some(Err(anyhow!("invalid injection boundary")))); > } else { > // inject later > injections.push_front(inject); > } > } > > // nothing to inject now, let's see if there's further input > match ready!(this.input.as_mut().poll_next(cx)) { > None => Poll::Ready(None), > Some(Err(err)) => Poll::Ready(Some(Err(err))), > Some(Ok(raw)) if raw.is_empty() => { > Poll::Ready(Some(Err(anyhow!("unexpected empty raw data")))) > } > Some(Ok(raw)) => { > let offset = this.stream_len.fetch_add(raw.len(), Ordering::SeqCst) as u64; > let data = InjectedChunksInfo::Raw((offset, raw)); > > Poll::Ready(Some(Ok(data))) > } > } > } > > but technically all this accounting could move back to the backup_writer > as well, if the injected chunk info also contained the size.. > Yes, this is much more compact! Also, moving this to the backup writer as suggested should allow to further reduce code even more there, at least from the initial refactoring it seems to behave just fine.