From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 171B5606A31C for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2026 19:38:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=UKEVCfi3; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.a=ed25519-sha256 header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=RTOTXNi6; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=xKk+bI8B; dkim=neutral header.d=suse.cz header.i=@suse.cz header.a=ed25519-sha256 header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=1ODNwV09 Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FAB3C332C for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2026 20:38:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (in-7.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D73AC3C332C for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2026 20:38:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 405DF200769 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2026 20:38:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D78B7220B5; Mon, 9 Nov 2026 19:38:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1794253096; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=T90Q2mca0ybWC1e0FIJZ3MXCwgan37/bVPbSRg79hzM=; b=UKEVCfi33JJP2bnaENKkwMVP8lvVs4lbH88tmklbLtsugwZY1crdZBOBX6UFRo3Mf+DidI FOGCNaOVD6rR8gySWqlZ2N0EGNJjYD+q+xOZdcII8cLufIic17QUtvSEUF71PMvFeLCjwP ugk+//xPLpis9J3VumCAXDfYA5hZtys= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1794253096; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=T90Q2mca0ybWC1e0FIJZ3MXCwgan37/bVPbSRg79hzM=; b=RTOTXNi6iYUzVAf3598k0sE5C4cfx3ivyxfB66+A9z+mn2GNsyusPCVpKpqbLlCz0xpuaf MT3yY3ge6FjJPKBQ== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=xKk+bI8B; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=1ODNwV09 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1794253095; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=T90Q2mca0ybWC1e0FIJZ3MXCwgan37/bVPbSRg79hzM=; b=xKk+bI8BkI8VXVClDpGXDwQRujN3H03RvmgdfHSIl9f/TMVBrRzIfotwHNbSDfs/ZByZcv 8w2nLSvqFq1lJHzQS8idHQEXwMTpgs6peVJlrks9HboENt+ZS/vXXvWnEnY6DUT98PBPgH i+M4s4MyLMSfEFOgwC/nKscRPmrUCMs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1794253095; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=T90Q2mca0ybWC1e0FIJZ3MXCwgan37/bVPbSRg79hzM=; b=1ODNwV09DEOzfgZi1SjAe3y4SGa2gWKNddfUMC0xu/x4Mo6Ru/yR+e8HvS/aiJhupKy05l Klfi7vsrG28feXAA== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B20313319; Mon, 9 Nov 2026 19:38:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id XD2LEych8mopKQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Mon, 09 Nov 2026 19:38:15 +0000 Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2026 20:38:09 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: ltp@lists.linux.it Message-ID: <20261109193809.GA669592@pevik> References: <20261109193344.669217-1-pvorel@suse.cz> X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20261109193344.669217-1-pvorel@suse.cz> X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-12.71 / 50.00]; SUSE_INTERNAL_BYPASS(-9.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; RBL_SPAMHAUS_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167:received]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+] X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd1.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Spam-Score: -12.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D78B7220B5 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.9 at in-7.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] zram01.sh: Fill the filesystem with a single dd call X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ltp" Hi, More data how it's slow on the current implementation (without this patch): We have these filesystems: zram01 6 TINFO: mount /dev/zram0 (ext2) zram01 6 TINFO: mount /dev/zram1 (ext3) zram01 6 TINFO: mount /dev/zram2 (ext4) zram01 6 TINFO: mount /dev/zram3 (xfs) zram01 6 TINFO: mount /dev/zram4 (btrfs) zram01 6 TINFO: mount /dev/zram5 (vfat) For some reason only for XFS and Btrfs test use bigger disk size and therefore bigger memory limit (I haven't investigated, but we use the same lzo alg. for all of them): zram01 3 TINFO: set disk size to zram device(s) zram01 3 TINFO: /sys/block/zram0/disksize = '26214400' zram01 3 TINFO: /sys/block/zram1/disksize = '26214400' zram01 3 TINFO: /sys/block/zram2/disksize = '26214400' zram01 3 TINFO: /sys/block/zram3/disksize = '314572800' zram01 3 TINFO: /sys/block/zram4/disksize = '402653184' zram01 3 TINFO: /sys/block/zram5/disksize = '26214400' zram01 3 TPASS: test succeeded zram01 4 TINFO: set memory limit to zram device(s) zram01 4 TINFO: /sys/block/zram0/mem_limit = '25M' zram01 4 TINFO: /sys/block/zram1/mem_limit = '25M' zram01 4 TINFO: /sys/block/zram2/mem_limit = '25M' zram01 4 TINFO: /sys/block/zram3/mem_limit = '300M' zram01 4 TINFO: /sys/block/zram4/mem_limit = '384M' zram01 4 TINFO: /sys/block/zram5/mem_limit = '25M' And therefore filling it (test 7) fails on Btrfs: zram01 7 TINFO: filling zram0 (it can take long time) zram01 7 TPASS: zram0 was filled with '24724' KB zram01 7 TINFO: /sys/block/zram0/mm_stat 24145920 24006 69632 26214400 69632 5877 0 zram01 7 TINFO: mem_used_total: 69632 zram01 7 TPASS: compression ratio: 363.58:1 zram01 7 TINFO: filling zram1 (it can take long time) zram01 7 TPASS: zram1 was filled with '20628' KB zram01 7 TINFO: /sys/block/zram1/mm_stat 26144768 184936 577536 26214400 577536 6079 0 zram01 7 TINFO: mem_used_total: 577536 zram01 7 TPASS: compression ratio: 36.57:1 zram01 7 TINFO: filling zram2 (it can take long time) zram01 7 TPASS: zram2 was filled with '20132' KB zram01 7 TINFO: /sys/block/zram2/mm_stat 24580096 31639 122880 26214400 122880 5774 0 zram01 7 TINFO: mem_used_total: 122880 zram01 7 TPASS: compression ratio: 167.76:1 zram01 7 TINFO: filling zram3 (it can take long time) zram01 7 TPASS: zram3 was filled with '285128' KB zram01 7 TINFO: /sys/block/zram3/mm_stat 298844160 100509 249856 314572800 253952 72411 0 zram01 7 TINFO: mem_used_total: 249856 zram01 7 TPASS: compression ratio: 1168.55:1 zram01 7 TINFO: filling zram4 (it can take long time) Interesting enough, ~1/4 smaller XFS is ok, Btrfs is probably too big. Of course nothing problematic in dmesg, IMHO it's just long (2h15m while still filling zram4 btrfs). And yes, looking into logs suggest testing each filesystem separately would help to read the logs. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp