Re: [PATCH V3 01/19] Fix xfs/009 to work with 64k block size

Darrick J. Wong
2018-09-18T08:57:56Z

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:18:30PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 03:59:25PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >
> > Hm. Certain filesystems draw a distinction between the fundamental
> > block size and the minimum file block mapping size. ocfs2 supports
> > having a file cluster size (mkfs.ocfs2 -C) that is greater than the fs
> > block size, and (I think) xfs can achieve something similar for files on
> > a realtime device via the mkfs.xfs -r extsize= option.
> >
> > If you're dealing with writing things into a file for a test, I think
> > you have to use _get_file_block_size to make sure that you don't fall
> > afoul of the cluster/block difference. I don't know if you've checked
> > that for this patch series...?
> >
> > (Granted, I suspect that many tests have been sloppy about this...)
>
> Indeed, we have a number of failures in ext4 bigalloc which are
> because of this block size vs. cluster size difference. IIRC, a while
> back Eric Whitney had tried to start a discussion about how to best
> deal with this issue, but it wasn't clear what was the right way to
> add the necessary infrastructure to xfstests. I had assumed it was an
> ext4-only problem, and no one had time to try to come up with a
> solution.
>
> As far as I know, we still don't have any general infrastructure to
> support this in xfstests. Is this correct, or am I missing something?

As far as I know we don't have any general infrastructure -- ocfs2 has
only recently been subjected to xfstests, and I don't think there are
many people running xfstests on a xfs filesystem where realtime has been
forced on for all files *and* the rt extent size is larger than a block.

IOWs: we don't test hardly ever, it's probably broken, and sigh. :(

--D

> - Ted