From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com>,
fstests@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kernel@pankajraghav.com, gost.dev@samsung.com, mcgrof@kernel.org,
djwong@kernel.org, zlang@redhat.com,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] xfs/161: adapt the test case for 64k FS blocksize
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 17:49:12 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ttj0bn7j.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240513131254.92412-2-kernel@pankajraghav.com>
"Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com> writes:
> From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
>
> This test fails when xfs is formatted with 64k filesystem block size*.
> It fails because the soft quota is not exceeded with the hardcoded 64k
> pwrite, thereby, the grace time is not set. Even though soft quota is
> set to 12k for uid1, it is rounded up to the nearest blocksize.
>
> *** Report for user quotas on device /dev/sdb3
> Block grace time: 7days; Inode grace time: 7days
> Block limits File limits
> User used soft hard grace used soft hard grace
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 0 -- 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
> 1 -- 64 64 1024 0 1 0 0 0
> 2 -- 64 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
>
> Adapt the pwrite to do twice the FS block size and set the soft limit
> to be 1 FS block and hard limit to be 100 FS blocks. This also gets rid
> of harcoded quota limit values.
>
> * This happens even on a 64k pagesize system and it is not related to
> LBS effort.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
Looks good to me. Small nit below.
(I can verify on Power once I am back)
Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
> ---
> tests/xfs/161 | 16 ++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/161 b/tests/xfs/161
> index 486fa6ca..5bda7019 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/161
> +++ b/tests/xfs/161
> @@ -38,15 +38,23 @@ _qmount_option "usrquota"
> _scratch_xfs_db -c 'version' -c 'sb 0' -c 'p' >> $seqres.full
> _scratch_mount >> $seqres.full
>
> +
> +blksz=$(_get_file_block_size "$SCRATCH_MNT")
> +# Write more than one block to exceed the soft block quota limit via
> +# xfs_quota.
> +filesz=$(( 2 * $blksz))
> +lim_bsoft=$blksz
> +lim_bhard=$(( 100 * blksz ))
> +
> # Force the block counters for uid 1 and 2 above zero
> -_pwrite_byte 0x61 0 64k $SCRATCH_MNT/a >> $seqres.full
> -_pwrite_byte 0x61 0 64k $SCRATCH_MNT/b >> $seqres.full
> +_pwrite_byte 0x61 0 $filesz $SCRATCH_MNT/a >> $seqres.full
> +_pwrite_byte 0x61 0 $filesz $SCRATCH_MNT/b >> $seqres.full
> sync
> chown 1 $SCRATCH_MNT/a
> chown 2 $SCRATCH_MNT/b
>
> # Set quota limits on uid 1 before upgrading
> -$XFS_QUOTA_PROG -x -c 'limit -u bsoft=12k bhard=1m 1' $SCRATCH_MNT
> +$XFS_QUOTA_PROG -x -c 'limit -u bsoft='"$lim_bsoft"' bhard='"$lim_bhard"' 1' $SCRATCH_MNT
Small nit: I am not sure if we really need so many quotes for '"$lim_bsoft"' and
"'$lim_bhard"'.
>
> # Make sure the grace period is at /some/ point in the future. We have to
> # use bc because not all bashes can handle integer comparisons with 64-bit
> @@ -71,7 +79,7 @@ _scratch_mount
>
> # Set a very generous grace period and quota limits on uid 2 after upgrading
> $XFS_QUOTA_PROG -x -c 'timer -u -b -d 2147483647' $SCRATCH_MNT
> -$XFS_QUOTA_PROG -x -c 'limit -u bsoft=10000 bhard=150000 2' $SCRATCH_MNT
> +$XFS_QUOTA_PROG -x -c 'limit -u bsoft='"$lim_bsoft"' bhard='"$lim_bhard"' 2' $SCRATCH_MNT
>
> # Query the grace periods to see if they got set properly after the upgrade.
> repquota -upn $SCRATCH_MNT > $tmp.repquota
> --
> 2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-14 12:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-13 13:12 [PATCH v2 0/3] more lbs test fixes Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-05-13 13:12 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] xfs/161: adapt the test case for 64k FS blocksize Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-05-14 12:19 ` Ritesh Harjani [this message]
2024-05-13 13:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] generic/436: round up bufsz to nearest filesystem blksz Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-05-17 15:54 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-05-22 20:48 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-05-13 13:12 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] xfs/008: use block size instead of the pagesize Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-05-23 4:25 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-05-27 11:42 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-05-25 5:48 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] more lbs test fixes Zorro Lang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ttj0bn7j.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gost.dev@samsung.com \
--cc=kernel@pankajraghav.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=p.raghav@samsung.com \
--cc=zlang@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.