zdb: show dedup table and log attributes

robn commented 2 weeks ago

[Sponsors: Klara, Inc., Wasabi Technology, Inc.]

Motivation and Context

Commenting on #16752, and realised we didn't have a way to definitely show what kind dedup options are in place.

Description

Extends dump_ddt() to show container config (version, flags) and log flags and other info. A bit more lowlevel detail as befits a debugger.

$ zdb -D tank
DDT-blake3: version=1 [FDT]; flags=0x03 [FLAT LOG]; rootobj=65
DDT-blake3-zap-duplicate: dspace=0xa3400; mspace=0x88000; entries=1888
DDT-blake3-zap-unique: dspace=0x121800; mspace=0x108000; entries=2968
DDT-log-blake3-0: flags=0x01 [FLUSHING]; obj=66; len=0x0; txg=649; entries=0
DDT-log-blake3-1: flags=0x00; obj=67; len=0x160000; txg=657; entries=360

$ zdb -D tank
DDT-blake3: version=0 [LEGACY]; flags=0x00; rootobj=1
DDT-blake3-zap-duplicate: dspace=0x6e800; mspace=0x48000; entries=1824
DDT-blake3-zap-unique: dspace=0xba400; mspace=0x88000; entries=2752

Goes on to show the histograms and etc as it did before, so something for everyone.

How Has This Been Tested?

Just eyeballing on various test dedup configs and load generators I have lying around.

Types of changes

[ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
[x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
[ ] Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
[ ] Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
[ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
[ ] Library ABI change (libzfs, libzfs_core, libnvpair, libuutil and libzfsbootenv)
[ ] Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist:

[x] My code follows the OpenZFS code style requirements.
[ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
[x] I have read the contributing document.
[ ] I have added tests to cover my changes.
[ ] I have run the ZFS Test Suite with this change applied.
[x] All commit messages are properly formatted and contain Signed-off-by.

robn commented 4 days ago

Ok, repushed with decimal bytes. Surprising controversy! :sweat_smile:

robn commented 3 days ago

istg it drives me mad that user and kernel code have different ideas of what %lu and %llu are.

amotin commented 2 days ago

istg it drives me mad that user and kernel code have different ideas of what %lu and %llu are.

Is there a place where they don't mean long unsigned and long long unsigned?

robn commented 2 days ago

istg it drives me mad that user and kernel code have different ideas of what %lu and %llu are.

Is there a place where they don't mean long unsigned and long long unsigned?

Fair, my grumble was not very specific. It's more that on Linux (at least), uint64_t is long unsigned int in the kernel, but long long unsigned int in userspace. In shared code, the compiler will complain about both %lu and %llu, one in the kernel build, one in the user build. That is very annoying, but at least a reminder to add a cast. In userspace-only code, we end up here.

I keep meaning to find out exactly why uint64_t is defined differently.

I suppose I have no real cause for complaint, %lu and %llu say what they are, and PRIu64 is there for exactly this reason. But also that's a hassle to remember to type out, including closing the quotes; the inline %abc is much easier. If -Wformat would outright reject any use of %lu with something that isn't explicitly long unsigned (ditto %llu) then it'd be fine; I'd quickly train the muscle memory to use PRIu64. When the compiler doesn't complain though, I don't notice.

openzfs / zfs