FS/XFS testing framework
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: zlang@redhat.com, fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs/259: try to force loop device block size
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 15:22:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250528222226.GB8303@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aDAFRGWYESUaILZ6@infradead.org>

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 10:19:00PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 03:41:36PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> > 
> > Starting with 6.15-rc1, loop devices created with directio mode enabled
> > will set their logical block size to whatever STATX_DIO_ALIGN on the
> > host filesystem reports.  If you happen to be running a kernel that
> > always sets up loop devices in directio mode
> 
> Such a kernel has some weird out of tree patches.  Why would we want
> to support that?

Welll... the only reason I patched the loop driver to turn ovn directio
by default is because writeback throttling for loop devices keeps
getting turned on and off randomly.  At this point I have NFI if
throttling is actually the desired behavior or not.  It makes fstests
crawl really slowly.

On one hand it seems bogus that a loopbacked filesystem with enough
dirty pages to trip the thresholds then gets throttled doing writeback
to the pagecache of the loop file, but OTOH it /is/ more dirty
pagecache.  Ultimately I think non-directio loop devices are stupid
especially when there are filesystems on top of them, but I bet there's
some user that would break if we suddenly started requiring directio
alignments.

Maybe RWF_DONTCACHE will solve this whenever it stabilizes.

--D

  reply	other threads:[~2025-05-28 22:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-05-21 22:40 [PATCHSET 1/2] fstests: check new 6.15 behaviors Darrick J. Wong
2025-05-21 22:41 ` [PATCH 1/4] xfs/273: fix test for internal zoned filesystems Darrick J. Wong
2025-05-23  5:17   ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-05-21 22:41 ` [PATCH 2/4] xfs/259: drop the 512-byte fsblock logic from this test Darrick J. Wong
2025-05-23  5:17   ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-05-21 22:41 ` [PATCH 3/4] xfs/259: try to force loop device block size Darrick J. Wong
2025-05-22  1:21   ` Dave Chinner
2025-05-28 22:36     ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-05-23  5:19   ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-05-28 22:22     ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2025-06-02  5:07       ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-03 14:36         ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-06-03 14:37           ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-05-21 22:41 ` [PATCH 4/4] xfs/432: fix metadump loop device blocksize problems Darrick J. Wong
2025-05-22  1:08   ` Dave Chinner
2025-05-28 22:37     ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-07-10 16:16 ` [PATCHSET 1/2] fstests: check new 6.15 behaviors Darrick J. Wong
2025-07-10 18:26   ` Zorro Lang

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=20250528222226.GB8303@frogsfrogsfrogs \
    --to=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=zlang@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox