Implement and use cursor routines for bio message data items for
outbound message data.

(See the previous commit for reasoning in support of the changes
in out_msg_pos_next().)
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Switch to using the message cursor for the (non-trail) outgoing
pagelist data item in a message if present.

Notes on the logic changes in out_msg_pos_next():
    - only the mds client uses a ceph pagelist for message data;
    - if the mds client ever uses a pagelist, it never uses a page
      array (or anything else, for that matter) for data in the same
      message;
    - only the osd client uses the trail portion of a message data,
      and when it does, it never uses any other data fields for
      outgoing data in the same message; and finally
    - only the rbd client uses bio message data (never pagelist).

Therefore out_msg_pos_next() can assume:
    - if we're in the trail portion of a message, the message data
      pagelist, data, and bio can be ignored; and
    - if there is a page list, there will never be any a bio or page
      array data, and vice-versa.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

This just inserts some infrastructure in preparation for handling
other types of ceph message data items.  No functional changes,
just trying to simplify review by separating out some noise.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

This patch lays out the foundation for using generic routines to
manage processing items of message data.

For simplicity, we'll start with just the trail portion of a
message, because it stands alone and is only present for outgoing
data.

First some basic concepts.  We'll use the term "data item" to
represent one of the ceph_msg_data structures associated with a
message.  There are currently four of those, with single-letter
field names p, l, b, and t.  A data item is further broken into
"pieces" which always lie in a single page.  A data item will
include a "cursor" that will track state as the memory defined by
the item is consumed by sending data from or receiving data into it.

We define three routines to manipulate a data item's cursor: the
"init" routine; the "next" routine; and the "advance" routine.  The
"init" routine initializes the cursor so it points at the beginning
of the first piece in the item.  The "next" routine returns the
page, page offset, and length (limited by both the page and item
size) of the next unconsumed piece in the item.  It also indicates
to the caller whether the piece being returned is the last one in
the data item.

The "advance" routine consumes the requested number of bytes in the
item (advancing the cursor).  This is used to record the number of
bytes from the current piece that were actually sent or received by
the network code.  It returns an indication of whether the result
means the current piece has been fully consumed.  This is used by
the message send code to determine whether it should calculate the
CRC for the next piece processed.

The trail of a message is implemented as a ceph pagelist.  The
routines defined for it will be usable for non-trail pagelist data
as well.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Group the types of message data into an abstract structure with a
type indicator and a union containing fields appropriate to the
type of data it represents.  Use this to represent the pages,
pagelist, bio, and trail in a ceph message.

Verify message data is of type NONE in ceph_msg_data_set_*()
routines.  Since information about message data of type NONE really
should not be interpreted, get rid of the other assertions in those
functions.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

A ceph message has a data payload portion.  The memory for that data
(either the source of data to send or the location to place data
that is received) is specified in several ways.  The ceph_msg
structure includes fields for all of those ways, but this
mispresents the fact that not all of them are used at a time.

Specifically, the data in a message can be in:
    - an array of pages
    - a list of pages
    - a list of Linux bios
    - a second list of pages (the "trail")
(The two page lists are currently only ever used for outgoing data.)

Impose more structure on the ceph message, making the grouping of
some of these fields explicit.  Shorten the name of the
"page_alignment" field.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Define and use macros ceph_msg_has_*() to determine whether to
operate on the pages, pagelist, bio, and trail fields of a message.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Factor out a common block of code that updates a CRC calculation
over a range of data in a page.

This and the preceding patches are related to:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4403Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Define a new function ceph_tcp_recvpage() that behaves in a way
comparable to ceph_tcp_sendpage().

Rearrange the code in both read_partial_message_pages() and
read_partial_message_bio() so they have matching structure,
(similar to what's in write_partial_msg_pages()), and use
this new function.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Pull the code that reads the data portion into a message into
a separate function read_partial_msg_data().

Rename write_partial_msg_pages() to be write_partial_message_data()
to match its read counterpart, and to reflect its more generic
purpose.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Define local variables page_offset and length to represent the range
of bytes within a page that will be sent by ceph_tcp_sendpage() in
write_partial_msg_pages().
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

In prepare_write_message_data(), various fields are initialized in
preparation for writing message data out.  Meanwhile, in
read_partial_message(), there is essentially the same block of code,
operating on message variables associated with an incoming message.

Generalize prepare_write_message_data() so it works for both
incoming and outcoming messages, and use it in both spots.  The
did_page_crc is not used for input (so it's harmless to initialize
it).
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

There are several places where a message's out_msg_pos or in_msg_pos
field is used repeatedly within a function.  Use a local pointer
variable for this purpose to unclutter the code.

This and the upcoming cleanup patches are related to:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4403Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

At one time it was necessary to clear a message's bio_iter field to
avoid a bad pointer dereference in write_partial_msg_pages().

That no longer seems to be the case.  Here's why.

The message's bio fields represent (in this case) outgoing data.
Between where the bio_iter is made NULL in prepare_write_message()
and the call in that function to prepare_message_data(), the
bio fields are never used.

In prepare_message_data(), init-bio_iter() is called, and the result
of that overwrites the value in the message's bio_iter field.

Because it gets overwritten anyway, there is no need to set it to
NULL.  So don't do it.

This resolves:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4402Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

The mds client no longer tries to assign zero-length message data,
and the osd client no longer sets its data info more than once.
This allows us to activate assertions in the messenger to verify
these things never happen.

This resolves both of these:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4263
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4284Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Farnum <greg@inktank.com>

When an incoming message is destined for the osd client, the
messenger calls the osd client's alloc_msg method.  That function
looks up which request has the tid matching the incoming message,
and returns the request message that was preallocated to receive the
response.  The response message is therefore known before the
request is even started.

Between the start of the request and the receipt of the response,
the request and its data fields will not change, so there's no
reason we need to hold off setting them.  In fact it's preferable
to set them just once because it's more obvious that they're
unchanging.

So set up the fields describing where incoming data is to land in a
response message at the beginning of ceph_osdc_start_request().
Define a helper function that sets these fields, and use it to
set the fields for both outgoing data in the request message and
incoming data in the response.

This resolves:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4284Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Record the number of bytes of data in a page array rather than the
number of pages in the array.  It can be assumed that the page array
is of sufficient size to hold the number of bytes indicated (and
offset by the indicated alignment).
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Change it so we only assign outgoing data information for messages
if there is outgoing data to send.

This then allows us to add a few more (currently commented-out)
assertions.

This is related to:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4284Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Farnum <greg@inktank.com>

Define ceph_msg_data_set_pagelist(), ceph_msg_data_set_bio(), and
ceph_msg_data_set_trail() to clearly abstract the assignment of the
remaining data-related fields in a ceph message structure.  Use the
new functions in the osd client and mds client.

This partially resolves:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4263Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

When setting page array information for message data, provide the
byte length rather than the page count ceph_msg_data_set_pages().
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Define a function ceph_msg_data_set_pages(), which more clearly
abstracts the assignment page-related fields for data in a ceph
message structure.  Use this new function in the osd client and mds
client.

Ideally, these fields would never be set more than once (with
BUG_ON() calls to guarantee that).  At the moment though the osd
client sets these every time it receives a message, and in the event
of a communication problem this can happen more than once.  (This
will be resolved shortly, but setting up these helpers first makes
it all a bit easier to work with.)

Rearrange the field order in a ceph_msg structure to group those
that are used to define the possible data payloads.

This partially resolves:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4263Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Record the byte count for an osd request rather than the page count.
The number of pages can always be derived from the byte count (and
alignment/offset) but the reverse is not true.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Rather than explicitly initializing many fields to 0, NULL, or false
in a newly-allocated message, just use kzalloc() for allocating new
messages.  This will become a much more convenient way of doing
things anyway for upcoming patches that abstract the data field.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

While processing an outgoing pagelist (either the data pagelist or
trail) in a ceph message, the messenger cycles through each of the
pages on the list.  This is accomplished in out_msg_pos_next(), if
the end of the first page on the list is reached, the first page is
moved to the end of the list.

There is a list operation, list_rotate_left(), which performs
exactly this operation, and by using it, what's really going on
becomes more obvious.

So replace these two list_move_tail() calls with list_rotate_left().
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Define a new function in_msg_pos_next() to match out_msg_pos_next(),
and use it in place of code at the end of read_partial_message_pages()
and read_partial_message_bio().

Note that the page number is incremented and offset reset under
slightly different conditions from before.  The result is
equivalent, however, as explained below.

Each time an incoming message is going to arrive, we find out how
much room is left--not surpassing the current page--and provide that
as the number of bytes to receive.  So the amount we'll use is the
lesser of:  all that's left of the entire request; and all that's
left in the current page.

If we received exactly how many were requested, we either reached
the end of the request or the end of the page.  In the first case,
we're done, in the second, we move onto the next page in the array.

In all cases but (possibly) on the last page, after adding the
number of bytes received, page_pos == PAGE_SIZE.  On the last page,
it doesn't really matter whether we increment the page number and
reset the page position, because we're done and we won't come back
here again.  The code previously skipped over that last case,
basically.  The new code handles that case the same as the others,
incrementing and resetting.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

There is only one caller for read_partial_message_bio(), and it
always passes &msg->bio_iter and &bio_seg as the second and third
arguments.  Furthermore, the message in question is always the
connection's in_msg, and we can get that inside the called function.

So drop those two parameters and use their derived equivalents.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Change the type of the "more" parameter from int to bool.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Some values printed are not (necessarily) in CPU order.  We already
have a copy of the converted versions, so use them.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

This is probably unnecessary but the code read as if it were wrong
in read_partial_message().
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

In ceph_con_in_msg_alloc() it is possible for a connection's
alloc_msg method to indicate an incoming message should be skipped.
By default, read_partial_message() initializes the skip variable
to 0 before it gets provided to ceph_con_in_msg_alloc().

The osd client, mon client, and mds client each supply an alloc_msg
method.  The mds client always assigns skip to be 0.

The other two leave the skip value of as-is, or assigns it to zero,
except:
    - if no (osd or mon) request having the given tid is found, in
      which case skip is set to 1 and NULL is returned; or
    - in the osd client, if the data of the reply message is not
      adequate to hold the message to be read, it assigns skip
      value 1 and returns NULL.
So the returned message pointer will always be NULL if skip is ever
non-zero.

Clean up the logic a bit in ceph_con_in_msg_alloc() to make this
state of affairs more obvious.  Add a comment explaining how a null
message pointer can mean either a message that should be skipped or
a problem allocating a message.

This resolves:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4324Reported-by: Greg Farnum <greg@inktank.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Farnum <greg@inktank.com>

An osd request defines information about where data to be read
should be placed as well as where data to write comes from.
Currently these are represented by common fields.

Keep information about data for writing separate from data to be
read by splitting these into data_in and data_out fields.

This is the key patch in this whole series, in that it actually
identifies which osd requests generate outgoing data and which
generate incoming data.  It's less obvious (currently) that an osd
CALL op generates both outgoing and incoming data; that's the focus
of some upcoming work.

This resolves:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4127Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

An osd request uses either pages or a bio list for its data.  Use a
union to record information about the two, and add a data type
tag to select between them.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Pull the fields in an osd request structure that define the data for
the request out into a separate structure.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Currently ceph_osdc_new_request() assigns an osd request's
r_num_pages and r_alignment fields.  The only thing it does
after that is call ceph_osdc_build_request(), and that doesn't
need those fields to be assigned.

Move the assignment of those fields out of ceph_osdc_new_request()
and into its caller.  As a result, the page_align parameter is no
longer used, so get rid of it.

Note that in ceph_sync_write(), the value for req->r_num_pages had
already been calculated earlier (as num_pages, and fortunately
it was computed the same way).  So don't bother recomputing it,
but because it's not needed earlier, move that calculation after the
call to ceph_osdc_new_request().  Hold off making the assignment to
r_alignment, doing it instead r_pages and r_num_pages are
getting set.

Similarly, in start_read(), nr_pages already holds the number of
pages in the array (and is calculated the same way), so there's no
need to recompute it.  Move the assignment of the page alignment
down with the others there as well.

This and the next few patches are preparation work for:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4127Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

(This is being reposted.  The first one had a problem because it
erroneously added a similar change elsewhere; that change has been
dropped.)

The next patch in this series points out that the calculation for
the number of pages in an osd request is getting done twice.  It
is not obvious, but the result of both calculations is identical.
This patch simplifies one of them--as a separate step--to make
it clear that the transformation in the next patch is valid.

In ceph_sync_write() there is some magic that computes page_align
for an osd request.  But a little analysis shows it can be
simplified.

First, we have:
 	io_align = pos & ~PAGE_MASK;
which is used here:
	page_align = (pos - io_align + buf_align) & ~PAGE_MASK;

Note (pos - io_align) simply rounds "pos" down to the nearest multiple
of the page size.

We also have:
 	buf_align = (unsigned long)data & ~PAGE_MASK;

Adding buf_align to that rounded-down "pos" value will stay within
the same page; the result will just be offset by the page offset for
the "data" pointer.  The final mask therefore leaves just the value
of "buf_align".

One more simplification.  Note that the result of calc_pages_for()
is invariant of which page the offset starts in--the only thing that
matters is the offset within the starting page.  We will have
put the proper page offset to use into "page_align", so just use
that in calculating num_pages.

This resolves:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4166Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

There's a spot that computes the number of pages to allocate for a
page-aligned length by just shifting it.  Use calc_pages_for()
instead, to be consistent with usage everywhere else.  The result
is the same.

The reason for this is to make it clearer in an upcoming patch that
this calculation is duplicated.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>

Currently, incoming mds messages never use page data, which means
there is no need to set the page_alignment field in the message.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Farnum <greg@inktank.com>

The only user of the ceph messenger that doesn't define an alloc_msg
method is the mds client.  Define one, such that it works just like
it did before, and simplify ceph_con_in_msg_alloc() by assuming the
alloc_msg method is always present.

This and the next patch resolve:
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/4322Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Farnum <greg@inktank.com>

In ceph_con_in_msg_alloc(), if no alloc_msg method is defined for a
connection a new message is allocated with ceph_msg_new().

Drop the mutex before making this call, and make sure we're still
connected when we get it back again.

This is preparing for the next patch, which ensures all connections
define an alloc_msg method, and then handles them all the same way.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Farnum <greg@inktank.com>

The purpose of ceph_calc_object_layout() is to fill in the pool
number and seed for a ceph_pg structure provided, based on a given
osd map and target object id.

Currently that function takes a file layout parameter, but the only
thing used out of that is its pool number.

Change the function so it takes a pool number rather than the full
file layout structure.  Only update the ceph_pg if the pool is found
in the osd map.  Get rid of few useless lines of code from the
function while there.

Since the function now very clearly just fills in the ceph_pg
structure it's provided, rename it ceph_calc_ceph_pg().
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>