* [PATCH] generic/027: enlarge fs size for btrfs in bigger page-size machine @ 2015-09-11 11:41 xuw2015 2015-09-11 12:06 ` Filipe David Manana 2015-09-21 0:19 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: xuw2015 @ 2015-09-11 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: fstests; +Cc: George Wang From: George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> btrfs on bigger page-size machine(such as ppc64/ppc64le), the min fs size shoule be more than 480MB. Otherwise, the mount will fail. So we shoud adjust the fs size to 512MB for btrfs to run this test correctly. And we also provide a double check: if mount fails, we should never run this test. Signed-off-by: George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> --- tests/generic/027 | 19 +++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/generic/027 b/tests/generic/027 index d2e59d6..c42b9a6 100755 --- a/tests/generic/027 +++ b/tests/generic/027 @@ -65,8 +65,17 @@ _require_scratch rm -f $seqres.full echo "Silence is golden" -_scratch_mkfs_sized $((256 * 1024 * 1024)) >>$seqres.full 2>&1 -_scratch_mount +loop=100 +fs_size=$((256 * 1024 * 1024)) +# btrfs takes much longer time, reduce the loop count +# btrfs takes much more space when first mount on bigger page-size machine +if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then + loop=10 + fs_size=$((512 * 1024 * 1024)) +fi + +_scratch_mkfs_sized $(fs_size) >>$seqres.full 2>&1 +_scratch_mount || _notrun "scratch dev is not mounted successfully" echo "Reserve 2M space" >>$seqres.full $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 2m" $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1 @@ -75,12 +84,6 @@ $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 254m" $SCRATCH_MNT/bigfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1 echo "Remove reserved file" >>$seqres.full rm -f $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile -loop=100 -# btrfs takes much longer time, reduce the loop count -if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then - loop=10 -fi - dir=$SCRATCH_MNT/testdir echo -n "iteration" >>$seqres.full i=1 -- 1.9.3 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] generic/027: enlarge fs size for btrfs in bigger page-size machine 2015-09-11 11:41 [PATCH] generic/027: enlarge fs size for btrfs in bigger page-size machine xuw2015 @ 2015-09-11 12:06 ` Filipe David Manana [not found] ` <CAPBX1x+GZ0iorNojS90o7eAw4-0Z3LWsLN_8Bz8vscwJ0vEjQQ@mail.gmail.com> 2015-09-21 0:19 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Filipe David Manana @ 2015-09-11 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xuw2015; +Cc: fstests On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, <xuw2015@gmail.com> wrote: > From: George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> > > btrfs on bigger page-size machine(such as ppc64/ppc64le), the min fs > size shoule be more than 480MB. Otherwise, the mount will fail. Interesting, wasn't aware of that. How does it fail? What error message do you get? How did you calculate those values (480Mb and 512Mb)? thanks > So we shoud adjust the fs size to 512MB for btrfs to run this test > correctly. And we also provide a double check: if mount fails, we should > never run this test. > > Signed-off-by: George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> > --- > tests/generic/027 | 19 +++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/generic/027 b/tests/generic/027 > index d2e59d6..c42b9a6 100755 > --- a/tests/generic/027 > +++ b/tests/generic/027 > @@ -65,8 +65,17 @@ _require_scratch > rm -f $seqres.full > echo "Silence is golden" > > -_scratch_mkfs_sized $((256 * 1024 * 1024)) >>$seqres.full 2>&1 > -_scratch_mount > +loop=100 > +fs_size=$((256 * 1024 * 1024)) > +# btrfs takes much longer time, reduce the loop count > +# btrfs takes much more space when first mount on bigger page-size machine > +if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then > + loop=10 > + fs_size=$((512 * 1024 * 1024)) > +fi > + > +_scratch_mkfs_sized $(fs_size) >>$seqres.full 2>&1 > +_scratch_mount || _notrun "scratch dev is not mounted successfully" > > echo "Reserve 2M space" >>$seqres.full > $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 2m" $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1 > @@ -75,12 +84,6 @@ $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 254m" $SCRATCH_MNT/bigfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1 > echo "Remove reserved file" >>$seqres.full > rm -f $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile > > -loop=100 > -# btrfs takes much longer time, reduce the loop count > -if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then > - loop=10 > -fi > - > dir=$SCRATCH_MNT/testdir > echo -n "iteration" >>$seqres.full > i=1 > -- > 1.9.3 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Filipe David Manana, "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAPBX1x+GZ0iorNojS90o7eAw4-0Z3LWsLN_8Bz8vscwJ0vEjQQ@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: [PATCH] generic/027: enlarge fs size for btrfs in bigger page-size machine [not found] ` <CAPBX1x+GZ0iorNojS90o7eAw4-0Z3LWsLN_8Bz8vscwJ0vEjQQ@mail.gmail.com> @ 2015-09-14 8:35 ` Filipe David Manana 2015-09-14 9:29 ` George Wang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Filipe David Manana @ 2015-09-14 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: George Wang; +Cc: fstests On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:40 AM, George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, <xuw2015@gmail.com> wrote: >>> From: George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> >>> >>> btrfs on bigger page-size machine(such as ppc64/ppc64le), the min fs >>> size shoule be more than 480MB. Otherwise, the mount will fail. >> >> Interesting, wasn't aware of that. >> How does it fail? What error message do you get? > > The ppc64/ppc64le page size is 64KB, and if the fs size is less than > 480MB, the first > mount operation failed, the 2nd time succeeded. (adding back fstests list) Yes, but can you please mention if there's any btrfs error/warning/stack trace in syslog? > The following is my analysis: > > btrfs do the space allocation by do_chunk_alloc, but this function > does not care about > the size wanted to allocate, it just alloc the chunk size on its rule. > > the open_ctree will try to create the uuid tree, which needs to > reserve some space in > btrfs_start_transaction. if no engough space, the > reserve_metadata_bytes will call the > flush_space for space reclaiming. it will call flush_space many times, > every time with > different flush level. when the flush level is ALLOC_CHUNK, it will call the > do_chunk_alloc to allocate a chunk. Unfortunately, the new chunk may be smaller > than the size we want, so the first time to mount will fail. And we > mount it again, it > will allocate a chunk again, then the size can meet our requirement. So the second mount succeeds and it's able to allocate a big enough chunk while the first mount isn't? If so, than that's more likely to be a bug in btrfs rather than a problem in the test imho. On x86 running the test with MKFS_OPTIONS="-n 65536" should then theoretically allow to reproduce the issue, since the size of the files the test creates are multiples of both 4K and 64K. For me that (the mount "failure") doesn't happen, but instead the test has been running for over 2 hours with such a node size when it usually takes a couple minutes. thanks > >> >> How did you calculate those values (480Mb and 512Mb)? > > I did not calculate, just test many times by binary-search method. for example: > (256~512)->(384~512)->... > And I do not think 480MB is the accurate number, but for reproduce the > problem, it's > enough. > > Thanks > > George > >> >> thanks >> >>> So we shoud adjust the fs size to 512MB for btrfs to run this test >>> correctly. And we also provide a double check: if mount fails, we should >>> never run this test. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> tests/generic/027 | 19 +++++++++++-------- >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tests/generic/027 b/tests/generic/027 >>> index d2e59d6..c42b9a6 100755 >>> --- a/tests/generic/027 >>> +++ b/tests/generic/027 >>> @@ -65,8 +65,17 @@ _require_scratch >>> rm -f $seqres.full >>> echo "Silence is golden" >>> >>> -_scratch_mkfs_sized $((256 * 1024 * 1024)) >>$seqres.full 2>&1 >>> -_scratch_mount >>> +loop=100 >>> +fs_size=$((256 * 1024 * 1024)) >>> +# btrfs takes much longer time, reduce the loop count >>> +# btrfs takes much more space when first mount on bigger page-size machine >>> +if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then >>> + loop=10 >>> + fs_size=$((512 * 1024 * 1024)) >>> +fi >>> + >>> +_scratch_mkfs_sized $(fs_size) >>$seqres.full 2>&1 >>> +_scratch_mount || _notrun "scratch dev is not mounted successfully" >>> >>> echo "Reserve 2M space" >>$seqres.full >>> $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 2m" $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1 >>> @@ -75,12 +84,6 @@ $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 254m" $SCRATCH_MNT/bigfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1 >>> echo "Remove reserved file" >>$seqres.full >>> rm -f $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile >>> >>> -loop=100 >>> -# btrfs takes much longer time, reduce the loop count >>> -if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then >>> - loop=10 >>> -fi >>> - >>> dir=$SCRATCH_MNT/testdir >>> echo -n "iteration" >>$seqres.full >>> i=1 >>> -- >>> 1.9.3 >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> >> >> -- >> Filipe David Manana, >> >> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. >> Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. >> That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." -- Filipe David Manana, "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] generic/027: enlarge fs size for btrfs in bigger page-size machine 2015-09-14 8:35 ` Filipe David Manana @ 2015-09-14 9:29 ` George Wang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: George Wang @ 2015-09-14 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Filipe Manana; +Cc: fstests On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:40 AM, George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, <xuw2015@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> From: George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> btrfs on bigger page-size machine(such as ppc64/ppc64le), the min fs >>>> size shoule be more than 480MB. Otherwise, the mount will fail. >>> >>> Interesting, wasn't aware of that. >>> How does it fail? What error message do you get? >> >> The ppc64/ppc64le page size is 64KB, and if the fs size is less than >> 480MB, the first >> mount operation failed, the 2nd time succeeded. > > (adding back fstests list) > > Yes, but can you please mention if there's any btrfs > error/warning/stack trace in syslog? > Of course, I can provide the logs: [root@ibm-p8-01-lp5 ~]# export LANG='C' [root@ibm-p8-01-lp5 ~]# fallocate -l 256MB ~/btrfs.img [root@ibm-p8-01-lp5 ~]# mkfs.btrfs ~/btrfs.img SMALL VOLUME: forcing mixed metadata/data groups btrfs-progs v3.19.1 See http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org for more information. Turning ON incompat feature 'mixed-bg': mixed data and metadata block groups Turning ON incompat feature 'extref': increased hardlink limit per file to 65536 Turning ON incompat feature 'skinny-metadata': reduced-size metadata extent refs Created a data/metadata chunk of size 8388608 ERROR: device scan failed '/root/btrfs.img' - Block device required fs created label (null) on /root/btrfs.img nodesize 65536 leafsize 65536 sectorsize 65536 size 244.12MiB [root@ibm-p8-01-lp5 ~]# mkdir /mnt/btrfs [root@ibm-p8-01-lp5 ~]# mount ~/btrfs.img /mnt/btrfs mount: mount /dev/loop0 on /mnt/btrfs failed: No space left on device [root@ibm-p8-01-lp5 ~]# mount ~/btrfs.img /mnt/btrfs <this time succeeded> dmesg: [ 7505.909441] Btrfs loaded [ 7524.291277] attempt to access beyond end of device [ 7524.291288] loop0: rw=0, want=500096, limit=500000 [ 7524.307093] BTRFS: device fsid c3e9f64e-81ea-4670-98f1-abcc9cec7ce9 devid 1 transid 4 /dev/loop0 [ 7524.308314] BTRFS info (device loop0): disk space caching is enabled [ 7524.308322] BTRFS: has skinny extents [ 7524.314560] BTRFS: creating UUID tree [ 7524.331911] BTRFS: failed to create the UUID tree -28 [ 7524.503742] BTRFS: open_ctree failed [ 7528.031807] attempt to access beyond end of device [ 7528.031818] loop0: rw=0, want=500096, limit=500000 [ 7528.032981] BTRFS info (device loop0): disk space caching is enabled [ 7528.032990] BTRFS: has skinny extents [ 7528.036360] BTRFS: creating UUID tree [ 7528.037789] SELinux: initialized (dev loop0, type btrfs), uses xattr >> The following is my analysis: >> >> btrfs do the space allocation by do_chunk_alloc, but this function >> does not care about >> the size wanted to allocate, it just alloc the chunk size on its rule. >> >> the open_ctree will try to create the uuid tree, which needs to >> reserve some space in >> btrfs_start_transaction. if no engough space, the >> reserve_metadata_bytes will call the >> flush_space for space reclaiming. it will call flush_space many times, >> every time with >> different flush level. when the flush level is ALLOC_CHUNK, it will call the >> do_chunk_alloc to allocate a chunk. Unfortunately, the new chunk may be smaller >> than the size we want, so the first time to mount will fail. And we >> mount it again, it >> will allocate a chunk again, then the size can meet our requirement. > > So the second mount succeeds and it's able to allocate a big enough > chunk while the first mount isn't? > If so, than that's more likely to be a bug in btrfs rather than a > problem in the test imho. > I am not sure. But from the standpoint of this test, it will test the fs on the SCRATCH_MNT. So the fs mount failed, it should not run the following test. So I think at lease we should check the success of mounting. Besides, I am not sure if this is a big deal for btrfs testing with 512MB fs. But obviously, this is the easiest way to make this test run anywhere. > On x86 running the test with MKFS_OPTIONS="-n 65536" should then > theoretically allow to reproduce the issue, since the size of the > files the test creates are multiples of both 4K and 64K. For me that > (the mount "failure") doesn't happen, but instead the test has been > running for over 2 hours with such a node size when it usually takes a > couple minutes. > I tried use the "-n 65536" opt, but it seems not the things I expect: Performing full device TRIM (1.00GiB) ... Turning ON incompat feature 'extref': increased hardlink limit per file to 65536 Turning ON incompat feature 'skinny-metadata': reduced-size metadata extent refs fs created label (null) on /dev/loop0 nodesize 65536 leafsize 65536 sectorsize 4096 size 1.00GiB ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^here, the page size I also tried use the "-s 65536 -n 65536" opts, mkfs OK, but can't mount with following error: [503272.399142] BTRFS: Incompatible sector size(65536) found on loop0 And the code's is like following: 2646 if (sectorsize != PAGE_SIZE) { 2647 printk(KERN_WARNING "BTRFS: Incompatible sector size(%lu) " 2648 "found on %s\n", (unsigned long)sectorsize, sb->s_id); 2649 goto fail_sb_buffer; 2650 } So I don't think you can simulate the context(64KB page) in the x86_64 machines with 4k page size. Thanks George > thanks > >> >>> >>> How did you calculate those values (480Mb and 512Mb)? >> >> I did not calculate, just test many times by binary-search method. for example: >> (256~512)->(384~512)->... >> And I do not think 480MB is the accurate number, but for reproduce the >> problem, it's >> enough. >> >> Thanks >> >> George >> >>> >>> thanks >>> >>>> So we shoud adjust the fs size to 512MB for btrfs to run this test >>>> correctly. And we also provide a double check: if mount fails, we should >>>> never run this test. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> tests/generic/027 | 19 +++++++++++-------- >>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tests/generic/027 b/tests/generic/027 >>>> index d2e59d6..c42b9a6 100755 >>>> --- a/tests/generic/027 >>>> +++ b/tests/generic/027 >>>> @@ -65,8 +65,17 @@ _require_scratch >>>> rm -f $seqres.full >>>> echo "Silence is golden" >>>> >>>> -_scratch_mkfs_sized $((256 * 1024 * 1024)) >>$seqres.full 2>&1 >>>> -_scratch_mount >>>> +loop=100 >>>> +fs_size=$((256 * 1024 * 1024)) >>>> +# btrfs takes much longer time, reduce the loop count >>>> +# btrfs takes much more space when first mount on bigger page-size machine >>>> +if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then >>>> + loop=10 >>>> + fs_size=$((512 * 1024 * 1024)) >>>> +fi >>>> + >>>> +_scratch_mkfs_sized $(fs_size) >>$seqres.full 2>&1 >>>> +_scratch_mount || _notrun "scratch dev is not mounted successfully" >>>> >>>> echo "Reserve 2M space" >>$seqres.full >>>> $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 2m" $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1 >>>> @@ -75,12 +84,6 @@ $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 254m" $SCRATCH_MNT/bigfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1 >>>> echo "Remove reserved file" >>$seqres.full >>>> rm -f $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile >>>> >>>> -loop=100 >>>> -# btrfs takes much longer time, reduce the loop count >>>> -if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then >>>> - loop=10 >>>> -fi >>>> - >>>> dir=$SCRATCH_MNT/testdir >>>> echo -n "iteration" >>$seqres.full >>>> i=1 >>>> -- >>>> 1.9.3 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Filipe David Manana, >>> >>> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. >>> Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. >>> That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." > > > > -- > Filipe David Manana, > > "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. > Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. > That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] generic/027: enlarge fs size for btrfs in bigger page-size machine 2015-09-11 11:41 [PATCH] generic/027: enlarge fs size for btrfs in bigger page-size machine xuw2015 2015-09-11 12:06 ` Filipe David Manana @ 2015-09-21 0:19 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2015-09-21 0:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xuw2015; +Cc: fstests On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 07:41:31PM +0800, xuw2015@gmail.com wrote: > From: George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> > > btrfs on bigger page-size machine(such as ppc64/ppc64le), the min fs > size shoule be more than 480MB. Otherwise, the mount will fail. > So we shoud adjust the fs size to 512MB for btrfs to run this test > correctly. And we also provide a double check: if mount fails, we should > never run this test. > > Signed-off-by: George Wang <xuw2015@gmail.com> > --- > tests/generic/027 | 19 +++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/generic/027 b/tests/generic/027 > index d2e59d6..c42b9a6 100755 > --- a/tests/generic/027 > +++ b/tests/generic/027 > @@ -65,8 +65,17 @@ _require_scratch > rm -f $seqres.full > echo "Silence is golden" > > -_scratch_mkfs_sized $((256 * 1024 * 1024)) >>$seqres.full 2>&1 > -_scratch_mount > +loop=100 > +fs_size=$((256 * 1024 * 1024)) > +# btrfs takes much longer time, reduce the loop count > +# btrfs takes much more space when first mount on bigger page-size machine > +if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then > + loop=10 > + fs_size=$((512 * 1024 * 1024)) > +fi No. Please don't sprinkle fs magic numbers like this through tests. This is the second "btrfs breaks with small filesystems on 64k page size machines so change the test" patch in recent times. If btrfs has some special behaviour that it needs to support here (e.g. minimum fs size because of machine page size) then please modify the minimum size inside _scratch_mkfs_sized() via a callout to a new _mkfs_btrfs_sized() function. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-09-21 0:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-09-11 11:41 [PATCH] generic/027: enlarge fs size for btrfs in bigger page-size machine xuw2015
2015-09-11 12:06 ` Filipe David Manana
[not found] ` <CAPBX1x+GZ0iorNojS90o7eAw4-0Z3LWsLN_8Bz8vscwJ0vEjQQ@mail.gmail.com>
2015-09-14 8:35 ` Filipe David Manana
2015-09-14 9:29 ` George Wang
2015-09-21 0:19 ` Dave Chinner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox