From: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>
To: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>, fstests@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>,
djwong@kernel.org, john.g.garry@oracle.com, tytso@mit.edu
Subject: [PATCH v2 12/13] ext4/063: Atomic write test for extent split across leaf nodes
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 17:29:03 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8c4ae5d71e64da3781e9deb53966352dfcd4df0d.1750924903.git.ojaswin@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1750924903.git.ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>
In ext4, even if an allocated range is physically and logically
contiguous, it can still be split into 2 extents. This is because ext4
does not merge extents across leaf nodes. This is an issue for atomic
writes since even for a continuous extent the map block could (in rare
cases) return a shorter map, hence tearning the write. This test creates
such a file and ensures that the atomic write handles this case
correctly
Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>
---
tests/ext4/063 | 125 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tests/ext4/063.out | 2 +
2 files changed, 127 insertions(+)
create mode 100755 tests/ext4/063
create mode 100644 tests/ext4/063.out
diff --git a/tests/ext4/063 b/tests/ext4/063
new file mode 100755
index 00000000..25b5693d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/ext4/063
@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+#! /bin/bash
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+# Copyright (c) 2025 IBM Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
+#
+# In ext4, even if an allocated range is physically and logically contiguous,
+# it can still be split into 2 extents. This is because ext4 does not merge
+# extents across leaf nodes. This is an issue for atomic writes since even for
+# a continuous extent the map block could (in rare cases) return a shorter map,
+# hence tearning the write. This test creates such a file and ensures that the
+# atomic write handles this case correctly
+#
+. ./common/preamble
+. ./common/atomicwrites
+_begin_fstest auto atomicwrites
+
+_require_scratch_write_atomic_multi_fsblock
+_require_atomic_write_test_commands
+_require_command "$DEBUGFS_PROG" debugfs
+
+prep() {
+ local bs=`_get_block_size $SCRATCH_MNT`
+ local ex_hdr_bytes=12
+ local ex_entry_bytes=12
+ local entries_per_blk=$(( (bs - ex_hdr_bytes) / ex_entry_bytes ))
+
+ # fill the extent tree leaf which bs len extents at alternate offsets. For example,
+ # for 4k bs the tree should look as follows
+ #
+ # +---------+---------+
+ # | index 1 | index 2 |
+ # +-----+---+-----+---+
+ # +--------+ +-------+
+ # | |
+ # +----------+--------------+ +-----+-----+
+ # | ex 1 | ex 2 |... | ex n | | ex n + 1 |
+ # +-------------------------+ +-----------+
+ # 0 2 680 682
+ for i in $(seq 0 $entries_per_blk)
+ do
+ $XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite -b $bs $((i * 2 * bs)) $bs" $testfile > /dev/null
+ done
+ sync $testfile
+
+ echo >> $seqres.full
+ echo "Create file with extents spanning 2 leaves. Extents:">> $seqres.full
+ echo "...">> $seqres.full
+ $DEBUGFS_PROG -R "ex `basename $testfile`" $SCRATCH_DEV |& tail >> $seqres.full
+
+ # Now try to insert a new extent ex(new) between ex(n) and ex(n+1). Since
+ # this is a new FS the allocator would find continuous blocks such that
+ # ex(n) ex(new) ex(n+1) are physically(and logically) contiguous. However,
+ # since we dont merge extents across leaf we will end up with a tree as:
+ #
+ # +---------+---------+
+ # | index 1 | index 2 |
+ # +-----+---+-----+---+
+ # +--------+ +-------+
+ # | |
+ # +----------+--------------+ +-----+-----+
+ # | ex 1 | ex 2 |... | ex n | | ex merged |
+ # +-------------------------+ +-----------+
+ # 0 2 680 681 682 684
+ #
+ echo >> $seqres.full
+ torn_ex_offset=$((((entries_per_blk * 2) - 1) * bs))
+ $XFS_IO_PROG -c "pwrite $torn_ex_offset $bs" $testfile >> /dev/null
+ sync $testfile
+
+ echo >> $seqres.full
+ echo "Perform 1 block write at $torn_ex_offset to create torn extent. Extents:">> $seqres.full
+ echo "...">> $seqres.full
+ $DEBUGFS_PROG -R "ex `basename $testfile`" $SCRATCH_DEV |& tail >> $seqres.full
+
+ _scratch_cycle_mount
+}
+
+_scratch_mkfs >> $seqres.full
+_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full
+
+testfile=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile
+touch $testfile
+awu_max=$(_get_atomic_write_unit_max $testfile)
+
+echo >> $seqres.full
+echo "# Prepping the file" >> $seqres.full
+prep
+
+torn_aw_offset=$((torn_ex_offset - (torn_ex_offset % awu_max)))
+
+echo >> $seqres.full
+echo "# Performing atomic IO on the torn extent range. Command: " >> $seqres.full
+echo $XFS_IO_PROG -c "open -fsd $testfile" -c "pwrite -S 0x61 -DA -V1 -b $awu_max $torn_aw_offset $awu_max" >> $seqres.full
+$XFS_IO_PROG -c "open -fsd $testfile" -c "pwrite -S 0x61 -DA -V1 -b $awu_max $torn_aw_offset $awu_max" >> $seqres.full
+
+echo >> $seqres.full
+echo "Extent state after atomic write:">> $seqres.full
+echo "...">> $seqres.full
+$DEBUGFS_PROG -R "ex `basename $testfile`" $SCRATCH_DEV |& tail >> $seqres.full
+
+echo >> $seqres.full
+echo "# Checking data integrity" >> $seqres.full
+
+# create a dummy file with expected data
+$XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite -S 0x61 -b $awu_max 0 $awu_max" $testfile.exp >> /dev/null
+expected_data=$(od -An -t x1 -j 0 -N $awu_max $testfile.exp)
+
+# We ensure that the data after atomic writes should match the expected data
+actual_data=$(od -An -t x1 -j $torn_aw_offset -N $awu_max $testfile)
+if [[ "$actual_data" != "$expected_data" ]]
+then
+ echo "Checksum match failed at off: $torn_aw_offset size: $awu_max"
+ echo
+ echo "Expected: "
+ echo "$expected_data"
+ echo
+ echo "Actual contents: "
+ echo "$actual_data"
+
+ _fail
+fi
+
+echo -n "Data verification at offset $torn_aw_offset suceeded!" >> $seqres.full
+echo "Silence is golden"
+status=0
+exit
diff --git a/tests/ext4/063.out b/tests/ext4/063.out
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..de35fc52
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/ext4/063.out
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+QA output created by 063
+Silence is golden
--
2.49.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-26 11:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-26 11:58 [PATCH v2 00/13] Add more tests for multi fs block atomic writes Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-26 11:58 ` [PATCH v2 01/13] common/rc: Add _min() and _max() helpers Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-26 11:58 ` [PATCH v2 02/13] common/rc: Fix fsx for ext4 with bigalloc Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-26 13:32 ` Theodore Ts'o
2025-06-30 15:28 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-07-01 6:26 ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-07-02 15:13 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-06-26 11:58 ` [PATCH v2 03/13] common/rc: Add a helper to run fsx on a given file Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-26 11:58 ` [PATCH v2 04/13] ltp/fsx.c: Add atomic writes support to fsx Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-26 11:58 ` [PATCH v2 05/13] generic/1226: Add atomic write test using fio crc check verifier Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-27 14:09 ` John Garry
2025-07-01 16:18 ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-07-02 7:46 ` John Garry
2025-07-03 6:42 ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-07-03 16:26 ` John Garry
2025-07-04 14:35 ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-07-04 15:23 ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-07-07 8:18 ` John Garry
2025-07-08 6:50 ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-07-08 11:11 ` John Garry
2025-07-08 12:01 ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-07-08 12:34 ` John Garry
2025-07-11 10:39 ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-07-11 10:51 ` John Garry
2025-07-11 18:16 ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-07-07 8:02 ` John Garry
2025-06-26 11:58 ` [PATCH v2 06/13] generic/1227: Add atomic write test using fio verify on file mixed mappings Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-27 14:48 ` John Garry
2025-06-26 11:58 ` [PATCH v2 07/13] generic/1228: Add atomic write multi-fsblock O_[D]SYNC tests Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-26 11:58 ` [PATCH v2 08/13] generic/1229: Stress fsx with atomic writes enabled Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-26 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 09/13] generic/1230: Add sudden shutdown tests for multi block atomic writes Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-27 16:11 ` John Garry
2025-07-01 6:34 ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-26 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 10/13] ext4/061: Atomic writes stress test for bigalloc using fio crc verifier Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-26 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 11/13] ext4/062: Atomic writes test for bigalloc using fio crc verifier on multiple files Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-26 11:59 ` Ojaswin Mujoo [this message]
2025-06-26 11:59 ` [PATCH v2 13/13] ext4/064: Add atomic write tests for journal credit calculation Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-06-27 13:56 ` [PATCH v2 00/13] Add more tests for multi fs block atomic writes John Garry
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=8c4ae5d71e64da3781e9deb53966352dfcd4df0d.1750924903.git.ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--to=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--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