Re: question about xfstests case xfs/297

Re: question about xfstests case xfs/297

[Darrick J. Wong]

[cc fstests]

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:51:35PM +0800, xuyang wrote:
> Hi darrick
> 
> since commit d0e484a("check: wipe scratch devices between tests")is
> merged into xfstests, when I running xfs/297 on kernel 5.1.0-rc5+ with
> xfsprogs-4.18.0-3.el8.x86_64, it causes a failure that log size is too
> small to reach the minimum size, as below:
> 
> #wipefs -a /dev/sda11 (20G)
> /dev/sda11: 4 bytes were erased at offset 0x00000000 (xfs): 58 46 53 42
> #mkfs.xfs -f -d agcount=16,su=256k,sw=12 -l  su=256k,size=5120b /dev/sda11
> log size 5120 blocks too small, minimum size is 5184 blocks

That's not related to wipefs at all.

The problem here is that your vendor's xfsprogs package turns on reflink
by default.  The reflink feature increases the minimum log size
requirements, which this test doesn't account for, and hence it misses
by 64 blocks.  Evidently nobody at your vendor's QA department noticed?

I only noticed because I started carrying an "enable reflink by default"
patch last Thursday and it caused a bunch of regressions on tests that
call mkfs.xfs without looping in MKFS_OPTIONS.  I will be sending out
patches to fix all that shortly and will cc you on them.

> upstream xfsprogs doesn't have this problem.

Upstream xfsprogs doesn't enable reflink by default.

> I am confused about why the min_logblocks becomes larger after wipefs.
> Is it a calculating minimum log size bug?  Perhaps, I can adjust the
> logsize to 5184b. Can you give some advise?

Wait for the corrections and help me test them, please? :)

--D

> 
> Kind regards,
> Yang Xu
> 
> 
> 

Re: question about xfstests case xfs/297

[xuyang]

on 2019/05/08 0:37, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

> [cc fstests]
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:51:35PM +0800, xuyang wrote:
>> Hi darrick
>>
>> since commit d0e484a("check: wipe scratch devices between tests")is
>> merged into xfstests, when I running xfs/297 on kernel 5.1.0-rc5+ with
>> xfsprogs-4.18.0-3.el8.x86_64, it causes a failure that log size is too
>> small to reach the minimum size, as below:
>>
>> #wipefs -a /dev/sda11 (20G)
>> /dev/sda11: 4 bytes were erased at offset 0x00000000 (xfs): 58 46 53 42
>> #mkfs.xfs -f -d agcount=16,su=256k,sw=12 -l  su=256k,size=5120b /dev/sda11
>> log size 5120 blocks too small, minimum size is 5184 blocks
> That's not related to wipefs at all.
>
> The problem here is that your vendor's xfsprogs package turns on reflink
> by default.  The reflink feature increases the minimum log size
> requirements, which this test doesn't account for, and hence it misses
> by 64 blocks.  Evidently nobody at your vendor's QA department noticed?
>
> I only noticed because I started carrying an "enable reflink by default"
> patch last Thursday and it caused a bunch of regressions on tests that
> call mkfs.xfs without looping in MKFS_OPTIONS.  I will be sending out
> patches to fix all that shortly and will cc you on them.
    I got it .
>> upstream xfsprogs doesn't have this problem.
> Upstream xfsprogs doesn't enable reflink by default.
>
>> I am confused about why the min_logblocks becomes larger after wipefs.
>> Is it a calculating minimum log size bug?  Perhaps, I can adjust the
>> logsize to 5184b. Can you give some advise?
> Wait for the corrections and help me test them, please? :)
>
> --D
>
Hi  Darrick

    I have tested your patchset for 20 times(run seven affected cases), it's ok on my machine.

>> Kind regards,
>> Yang Xu
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: question about xfstests case xfs/297

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 02:55:24PM +0800, xuyang wrote:
> on 2019/05/08 0:37, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 
> > [cc fstests]
> > 
> > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:51:35PM +0800, xuyang wrote:
> > > Hi darrick
> > > 
> > > since commit d0e484a("check: wipe scratch devices between tests")is
> > > merged into xfstests, when I running xfs/297 on kernel 5.1.0-rc5+ with
> > > xfsprogs-4.18.0-3.el8.x86_64, it causes a failure that log size is too
> > > small to reach the minimum size, as below:
> > > 
> > > #wipefs -a /dev/sda11 (20G)
> > > /dev/sda11: 4 bytes were erased at offset 0x00000000 (xfs): 58 46 53 42
> > > #mkfs.xfs -f -d agcount=16,su=256k,sw=12 -l  su=256k,size=5120b /dev/sda11
> > > log size 5120 blocks too small, minimum size is 5184 blocks
> > That's not related to wipefs at all.
> > 
> > The problem here is that your vendor's xfsprogs package turns on reflink
> > by default.  The reflink feature increases the minimum log size
> > requirements, which this test doesn't account for, and hence it misses
> > by 64 blocks.  Evidently nobody at your vendor's QA department noticed?
> > 
> > I only noticed because I started carrying an "enable reflink by default"
> > patch last Thursday and it caused a bunch of regressions on tests that
> > call mkfs.xfs without looping in MKFS_OPTIONS.  I will be sending out
> > patches to fix all that shortly and will cc you on them.
>    I got it .
> > > upstream xfsprogs doesn't have this problem.
> > Upstream xfsprogs doesn't enable reflink by default.
> > 
> > > I am confused about why the min_logblocks becomes larger after wipefs.
> > > Is it a calculating minimum log size bug?  Perhaps, I can adjust the
> > > logsize to 5184b. Can you give some advise?
> > Wait for the corrections and help me test them, please? :)
> > 
> > --D
> > 
> Hi  Darrick
> 
>    I have tested your patchset for 20 times(run seven affected cases), it's ok on my machine.

Cool!  Could you reply to the patchset with your Tested-by, please? :)

--D

> 
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Yang Xu
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>