All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bill O'Donnell <bodonnel@redhat.com>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>, fstests@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fstests: generic/352 should accomodate other pwrite behaviors
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 07:11:59 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZOdJD9vY02EaX3Pd@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1b1ae25f-518f-4614-89d1-8fd564d82678@gmx.com>

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 02:46:10PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2023/8/24 11:38, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:03:23AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2023/8/24 06:27, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 05:18:02PM -0500, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 09:46:41AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 10:43:50AM -0500, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> > > > > > > xfs_io pwrite issues a series of block size writes, but there is no guarantee
> > > > > > > that the resulting extent(s) will be singular or contiguous.
> > > 
> > > However this doesn't make much difference, at least for btrfs.
> > > 
> > > Btrfs would do the merging emitting the fiemap entry, thus even if the
> > > write didn't result a singular extent, as long as they are contiguous
> > > (under most cases they are) the fiemap result would still be a single one.
> > > 
> > > > > > > This behavior is
> > > > > > > acceptable, but the test is flawed in that it expects a single extent for a
> > > > > > > pwrite.
> > > 
> > > I'm more interested in if you're hitting any test failure?
> > 
> > Yes we are.
> 
> I guess it's using XFS?

Yes. The problem begins with the initial pwrite, with unpredictable mapping.
It's happening under the following configuration:

export TEST_DEV=/dev/pmem0
export TEST_DIR=/mnt/test
export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/pmem0.1
export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch
export MKFS_OPTIONS="-m reflink=1 -m rmapbt=0 -b size=4096"
export MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o dax=always"
export TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="-o dax=always"

-Bill

> 
> Then the idea of using proper block size looks good to me.
> 
> And since we're getting rid of the golden output, it's also a good
> timing to get rid of the refactoring to match the golden output completely.
> 
> Thanks,
> Qu
> > 
> > thanks-
> > Bill
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Modify test to accept any layout for the reflinked logical range.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bill O'Donnell <bodonnel@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >    tests/generic/352     | 16 +++++++++++-----
> > > > > > >    tests/generic/352.out |  2 --
> > > > > > >    2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/352 b/tests/generic/352
> > > > > > > index 52ec4850..c4ee8a44 100755
> > > > > > > --- a/tests/generic/352
> > > > > > > +++ b/tests/generic/352
> > > > > > > @@ -48,19 +48,25 @@ _pwrite_byte 0xcdcdcdcd 0 $blocksize $file | _filter_xfs_io
> > > > > > >    # use reflink to create the rest of the file, whose all extents are all
> > > > > > >    # pointing to the first extent
> > > > > > >    for i in $(seq 1 $nr); do
> > > > > > > -	_reflink_range $file 0 $file $(($i * $blocksize)) $blocksize > /dev/null
> > > > > > > +	_reflink_range $file 0 $file $(($i * $blocksize)) $blocksize > $tmp1.out
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > $tmp1 isnt defined anywhere.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >    done
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >    # then call fiemap on that file to test both the shared flag and if
> > > > > > >    # reserved extent mapping search will cause soft lockup
> > > > > > > -$XFS_IO_PROG -c "fiemap -v" $file | _filter_fiemap_flags > $tmp.out
> > > > > > > -cat $tmp.out >> $seqres.full
> > > > > > > +$XFS_IO_PROG -c "fiemap -v" $file | _filter_fiemap_flags > $tmp2.out
> > > > > > > +cat $tmp2.out >> $seqres.full
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Nor is $tmp2
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >    # refact the $LOAD_FACTOR to 1 to match the golden output
> > > > > > >    sed -i -e "s/$(($last_extent - 1))/$(($orig_last_extent - 1))/" \
> > > > > > >    	-e "s/$last_extent/$orig_last_extent/" \
> > > > > > > -	-e "s/$end/$orig_end/" $tmp.out
> > > > > > > -cat $tmp.out
> > > > > > > +	-e "s/$end/$orig_end/" $tmp2.out
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +cat $tmp1.out > tmp.1
> > > > > > > +cat $tmp2.out > tmp.2
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Not sure why you didn't make the _reflink_range and the fiemap above
> > > > > > output to $tmp.out1 and $tmp.out2, respectively.  If you had, then the
> > > > > > default _cleanup would delete $tmp.* automatically...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +diff tmp.[12]
> > > > > > > +rm tmp.1
> > > > > > > +rm tmp.2
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ...and the rm here wouldn't be necessary.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ok.  Nitpicking over.  Moving on to the weirder design questions of the
> > > > > > original test:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [add original test author to cc]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Emails to quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com seem to be undeliverable. Maybe Joseph
> > > > > would know what btrfs intent was?
> > > > 
> > > > ...or I guess I could have used the current email addr instead of the
> > > > one on the commit. :(
> > > > 
> > > > Qu: Question for you:
> > > 
> > > Thanks a lot for referring it to me.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > I don't know why $blocksize is set to 128k above.  If this test needs to
> > > > > > guarantee that there would only be *one* extent (and the golden output
> > > > > > implies this as you note), then it should have been written to say:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 	blocksize=$(_get_file_block_size $SCRATCH_MNT)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But I don't know if the "btrfs soft lock up and return wrong shared
> > > > > > flag" behavior required sharing a (probably multi-block) 128k range, or
> > > > > > if that was simply what the author selected because it reproduced the
> > > > > > problem.
> > > 
> > > It's quite sometime ago, thus my memory may not be reliable, but IIRC
> > > the blocksize has no specific requirement other than allowing all
> > > possible blocksize (4K to 64K).
> > > 
> > > And at that time, at least I was preferring to use golden output to
> > > detect errors, thus I choose a larger blocksize to allow all blocksizes
> > > to work.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > > 
> > > > --D
> > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >    # success, all done
> > > > > > >    status=0
> > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/352.out b/tests/generic/352.out
> > > > > > > index 4ff66c21..ad90ae0d 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/tests/generic/352.out
> > > > > > > +++ b/tests/generic/352.out
> > > > > > > @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
> > > > > > >    QA output created by 352
> > > > > > >    wrote 131072/131072 bytes at offset 0
> > > > > > >    XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec)
> > > > > > > -0: [0..2097151]: shared
> > > > > > > -1: [2097152..2097407]: shared|last
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Also I suspect from the test description that the goal here was to
> > > > > > detect the golden output failing because the shared flag does not get
> > > > > > reported correctly.
> > > 
> > > Could explain more on why the shared flag detection is not correct here?
> > > 
> > > If a file extent is shared, no matter if it's shared by another inode or
> > > not, shouldn't it be marked with SHARED flag?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Qu
> > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --D
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 2.41.0
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2023-08-24 12:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-23 15:43 [PATCH] fstests: generic/352 should accomodate other pwrite behaviors Bill O'Donnell
2023-08-23 16:46 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-08-23 19:55   ` Bill O'Donnell
2023-08-23 20:42     ` Bill O'Donnell
2023-08-23 21:01       ` Bill O'Donnell
2023-08-23 22:18   ` Bill O'Donnell
2023-08-23 22:27     ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-08-24  0:03       ` Qu Wenruo
2023-08-24  3:38         ` Bill O'Donnell
2023-08-24  6:46           ` Qu Wenruo
2023-08-24 12:11             ` Bill O'Donnell [this message]
2023-08-24 18:16         ` Eric Sandeen

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=ZOdJD9vY02EaX3Pd@redhat.com \
    --to=bodonnel@redhat.com \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.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.