initial import of NetBSD tree

1 files changed, 118 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/sys/ufs/lfs/TODO b/sys/ufs/lfs/TODO
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..7608aa2ce03
--- /dev/null
+++ b/sys/ufs/lfs/TODO
@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+#	$NetBSD: TODO,v 1.2 1994/06/29 06:46:45 cgd Exp $
+
+#	@(#)TODO	8.1 (Berkeley) 6/11/93
+
+NOTE: Changed the lookup on a page of inodes to search from the back
+in case the same inode gets written twice on the same page.
+
+Make sure that if you are writing a file, but not all the blocks
+make it into a single segment, that you do not write the inode in
+that segment.
+
+Keith:
+	Why not delete the lfs_bmapv call, just mark everything dirty
+		that isn't deleted/truncated?  Get some numbers about
+		what percentage of the stuff that the cleaner thinks
+		might be live is live.  If it's high, get rid of lfs_bmapv.
+
+	There is a nasty problem in that it may take *more* room to write
+	the data to clean a segment than is returned by the new segment
+	because of indirect blocks in segment 2 being dirtied by the data
+	being copied into the log from segment 1.  The suggested solution
+	at this point is to detect it when we have no space left on the
+	filesystem, write the extra data into the last segment (leaving
+	no clean ones), make it a checkpoint and shut down the file system
+	for fixing by a utility reading the raw partition.  Argument is
+	that this should never happen and is practically impossible to fix
+	since the cleaner would have to theoretically build a model of the
+	entire filesystem in memory to detect the condition occurring.
+	A file coalescing cleaner will help avoid the problem, and one
+	that reads/writes from the raw disk could fix it.
+
+DONE	Currently, inodes are being flushed to disk synchronously upon
+		creation -- see ufs_makeinode.  However, only the inode
+		is flushed, the directory "name" is written using VOP_BWRITE,
+		so it's not synchronous.  Possible solutions: 1: get some
+		ordering in the writes so that inode/directory entries get
+		stuffed into the same segment.  2: do both synchronously
+		3: add Mendel's information into the stream so we log
+		creation/deletion of inodes.  4: do some form of partial
+		segment when changing the inode (creation/deletion/rename).
+DONE	Fix i_block increment for indirect blocks.
+	If the file system is tar'd, extracted on top of another LFS, the
+		IFILE ain't worth diddly.  Is the cleaner writing the IFILE?
+		If not, let's make it read-only.
+DONE	Delete unnecessary source from utils in main-line source tree.
+DONE	Make sure that we're counting meta blocks in the inode i_block count.
+	Overlap the version and nextfree fields in the IFILE
+DONE	Vinvalbuf (Kirk):
+		Why writing blocks that are no longer useful?
+		Are the semantics of close such that blocks have to be flushed?
+		How specify in the buf chain the blocks that don't need
+		to be written?  (Different numbering of indirect blocks.)
+
+Margo:
+	Change so that only search one sector of inode block file for the
+		inode by using sector addresses in the ifile instead of
+		logical disk addresses.
+	Fix the use of the ifile version field to use the generation
+		number instead.
+DONE	Unmount; not doing a bgetvp (VHOLD) in lfs_newbuf call.
+DONE	Document in the README file where the checkpoint information is
+		on disk.
+	Variable block sizes (Margo/Keith).
+	Switch the byte accounting to sector accounting.
+DONE	Check lfs.h and make sure that the #defines/structures are all
+		actually needed.
+DONE	Add a check in lfs_segment.c so that if the segment is empty,
+		we don't write it.
+	Need to keep vnode v_numoutput up to date for pending writes?
+DONE	USENIX paper (Carl/Margo).
+
+
+Evelyn:
+	lfsck:	If delete a file that's being executed, the version number
+		isn't updated, and lfsck has to figure this out; case is			the same as if have an inode that no directory references,
+		so the file should be reattached into lost+found.
+	Recovery/fsck.
+
+Carl:
+	Investigate: clustering of reads (if blocks in the segment are ordered,
+		should read them all) and writes (McVoy paper).
+	Investigate: should the access time be part of the IFILE:
+		pro: theoretically, saves disk writes
+		con: cacheing inodes should obviate this advantage
+		     the IFILE is already humongous
+	Cleaner.
+	Port to OSF/1 (Carl/Keith).
+	Currently there's no notion of write error checking.
+		+ Failed data/inode writes should be rescheduled (kernel level
+		  bad blocking).
+		+ Failed superblock writes should cause selection of new
+		  superblock for checkpointing.
+
+FUTURE FANTASIES: ============
+
++ unrm, versioning
++ transactions
++ extended cleaner policies (hot/cold data, data placement)
+
+==============================
+Problem with the concept of multiple buffer headers referencing the segment:
+Positives:
+	Don't lock down 1 segment per file system of physical memory.
+	Don't copy from buffers to segment memory.
+	Don't tie down the bus to transfer 1M.
+	Works on controllers supporting less than large transfers.
+	Disk can start writing immediately instead of waiting 1/2 rotation
+	    and the full transfer.
+Negatives:
+	Have to do segment write then segment summary write, since the latter
+	is what verifies that the segment is okay.  (Is there another way
+	to do this?)
+==============================
+
+The algorithm for selecting the disk addresses of the super-blocks
+has to be available to the user program which checks the file system.
+
+(Currently in newfs, becomes a common subroutine.)