Re: [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:41:50AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:18:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > > When test on large SCRATCH_DEV, grow a small XFS to huge size is a
> > > horrible thing (e.g grow 128m to 500T). So add a helper named
> > > _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() to do below things:
> > > 
> > > 1) If --large-fs is used, limit growfs size.
> > > 2) If a limit size parameter is specified, make sure growfs won't
> > > beyond this size.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>
> > 
> > I think I originally just didn't run growfs tests like this on large
> > filesystems. i.e. require_no_largefs....
> 
> Hmm... Sorry, am I facing different review-points from 3 different XFS maintainers? ...

I'm not a maintainer, I'm just the guy who added this functionality
to xfstests originally. Deciding what is to be done needs to start
from an understanding of the criteria I used for skipping tests on
large devices.  In this case, I never intended to have multiple
order magnitude growfs tests run on large scratch devices.

When I added large device support, I tried to avoid tests that we
already had substantial coverage for. i.e. if inreasing the space
used by the test doesn't increase test coverage but only increased
test runtime, then I skipped it.  In this case, we already test
small to large size growfs via loopback devices on small scratch
devices (e.g. xfs/078), so doing it on extremely large scratch
devices doesn't reallycover any new code or error conditions.

Hence, based on my original criteria for deciding what tests to run
on large filesystems, I would have skipped this test if it caused
excessive runtime. I was testing on sparse devices on SSDs, so seek
times for growfs did not impact performance, hence I probably didn't
skip it...

> Dave: require_no_largefs is better.
> Darrick: nearly ack this patch.
> Eric: 
> 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> [15:01]  <zoro> [00:55:47] I think maybe use _require_no_large_scratch_dev for xfs/002 will be better. Grow a 128M XFS to large size is 'horrible'
> 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> just limit growfs to something smaller.
> 
> What should I do next?

Make your own decision about how best to proceed based on the
feedback you've received. Or ask the fstests maintainer to decide
what is best....  :P

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com