From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83CA2CA0FE5 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 14:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1345987AbjIAOgf (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2023 10:36:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57210 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S243538AbjIAOge (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2023 10:36:34 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-x135.google.com (mail-il1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ED3DA4; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 07:36:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x135.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-34ca1bcb48fso6428365ab.2; Fri, 01 Sep 2023 07:36:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693578990; x=1694183790; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:subject:to:from:message-id:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=KHXbbveoHZR0tcPVV1tc/c3Ir5HWQidOEcLG9DliTh4=; b=EZVxumen8Qd0dhAoYIm2QtdU/yCBVENIWbRYjw08ttFBWrKmQtwTNx+QqFArMCghQI 7pMor1OHQhrIRCQJUlywndatKF0gkpvVtIsvef6kgDd708hTIWq8IgesaSHXvxM7Plgv zeE2ahZnOFVLt7IM3YSzNZkEDB7Wbn2JOy7b7cbg+m1uZs0qeQqEZ2GucBw9+4BcNAWV DUdqWQDNY/6joaK/mtwox9dvVwmH5Bqs8DgC4+cnATrsl96IMedrhM92oBcFLUwP7uDv tuI8A8ZtsXWA1DCPqd+fCMVLY34H21hc5oF+XgoArDFvUrqgZKzoi1oZD0VsOnh94JdU OgFg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693578990; x=1694183790; h=in-reply-to:subject:to:from:message-id:date:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KHXbbveoHZR0tcPVV1tc/c3Ir5HWQidOEcLG9DliTh4=; b=TBkQgNEMajTKlOd8Gx6R6HoghcTnMdaZRRBoIbRNO74htB4KIPg7TgzzMCGQ2MHJyO zPZcKdRcqSakR/9Qq7ujcok0V8Zr/qc1eAtC2Z/BvwtBE/2lzJjhjSsoRuL9QMYECV4o AraX0Ic6t5FYyobZCOl5eUeY2ZHlaI5BaZfPgg0Fqy9HMUEd/+7tSZ+zKwBgTnY4Ohw7 rZcsIy6aUgMXXSXyA3Q/bK6YGb0QT7K4SbTYKjvfRHhsyE2fKfrFVlsoa6Bpts7iJJwN oWUJbXfzS7DMDG86CyV07czZ2QrNEHyj9Nw80yz9sj+qaUN1ximJasRDh3QaHFtZdX0f Bpvg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyESa7gcXWbZTd1j0VD3l7R/WRz2ege+bzRUxURl1fw/Fpt+ZJv XGHQFrbEESSO1JkERJOnRG+m5DEjEXQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHnkcG7PjX/zv/zi4t6XQDUb3xhZFUuyC/yhIk2Tk0L/pu6HAMCBrFkEPNRxUOGvryYlk43YA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1071:b0:34c:b943:d170 with SMTP id q17-20020a056e02107100b0034cb943d170mr2781226ilj.18.1693578990210; Fri, 01 Sep 2023 07:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dw-tp ([49.207.223.191]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i11-20020a63b30b000000b005579f12a238sm2611803pgf.86.2023.09.01.07.36.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 01 Sep 2023 07:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2023 20:06:22 +0530 Message-Id: <87msy6kljt.fsf@doe.com> From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) To: Kemeng Shi , tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 11/11] ext4: run mballoc test with different layouts setting In-Reply-To: <20230826155028.4019470-12-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Kemeng Shi writes: > Use KUNIT_CASE_PARAM to run mbalaloc test with different layouts setting. ^^^ mballoc small nit below > > Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi > --- > fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c > index d643c56ac003..af48a39c8ba2 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c > @@ -196,21 +196,11 @@ static int ext4_mb_mark_context_stub(struct ext4_mark_context *mc, > return 0; > } > > -#define TEST_BLOCKSIZE_BITS 10 > -#define TEST_CLUSTER_BITS 3 > -#define TEST_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP 8192 > -#define TEST_GROUP_COUNT 4 > -#define TEST_DESC_SIZE 64 > #define TEST_GOAL_GROUP 1 > static int mbt_kunit_init(struct kunit *test) > { > - struct mbt_ext4_block_layout layout = { > - .blocksize_bits = TEST_BLOCKSIZE_BITS, > - .cluster_bits = TEST_CLUSTER_BITS, > - .blocks_per_group = TEST_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP, > - .group_count = TEST_GROUP_COUNT, > - .desc_size = TEST_DESC_SIZE, > - }; > + struct mbt_ext4_block_layout *layout = > + (struct mbt_ext4_block_layout *)(test->param_value); > struct super_block *sb; > int ret; > > @@ -218,7 +208,7 @@ static int mbt_kunit_init(struct kunit *test) > if (sb == NULL) > return -ENOMEM; > > - mbt_init_sb_layout(sb, &layout); > + mbt_init_sb_layout(sb, layout); > > ret = mbt_ctx_init(sb); > if (ret != 0) { > @@ -304,9 +294,43 @@ static void test_new_blocks_simple(struct kunit *test) > "unexpectedly get block when no block is available"); > } > > +static const struct mbt_ext4_block_layout mbt_test_layouts[] = { > + { > + .blocksize_bits = 10, > + .cluster_bits = 3, > + .blocks_per_group = 8192, > + .group_count = 4, > + .desc_size = 64, > + }, > + { > + .blocksize_bits = 12, > + .cluster_bits = 3, > + .blocks_per_group = 8192, > + .group_count = 4, > + .desc_size = 64, > + }, > + { > + .blocksize_bits = 18, 64k blocksize is more common due to platforms with 64k pagesize like Power and sometimes arm64. I would rather make it 16 here. I tested it on Power - [ 2.546687][ T1] KTAP version 1 [ 2.547123][ T1] 1..2 [ 2.547447][ T1] KTAP version 1 [ 2.547927][ T1] # Subtest: ext4_mballoc_test [ 2.548562][ T1] 1..1 [ 2.548933][ T1] KTAP version 1 [ 2.549457][ T1] # Subtest: test_new_blocks_simple [ 2.549550][ T108] kunit_try_catch (108) used greatest stack depth: 14512 bytes left [ 2.549644][ T1] ok 1 block_bits=10 cluster_bits=3 blocks_per_group=8192 group_count=4 desc_size=64 [ 2.552780][ T110] kunit_try_catch (110) used greatest stack depth: 14464 bytes left [ 2.552882][ T1] ok 2 block_bits=12 cluster_bits=3 blocks_per_group=8192 group_count=4 desc_size=64 [ 2.555909][ T1] ok 3 block_bits=18 cluster_bits=3 blocks_per_group=8192 group_count=4 desc_size=64 [ 2.557184][ T1] # test_new_blocks_simple: pass:3 fail:0 skip:0 total:3 [ 2.557186][ T1] ok 1 test_new_blocks_simple [ 2.558083][ T1] # Totals: pass:3 fail:0 skip:0 total:3 [ 2.558688][ T1] ok 1 ext4_mballoc_test Looks good to me. Feel free to add - Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM)