Re: [RFC 0/1] adapting btrfs/237 to work with the new reclaim algorithm

[Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>]

Hi Johannes,
  I gave my test a retry, and it started failing for all cases. This commit
by Boris changed the behavior of reclaim to be less aggressive:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/977bdffbf57cca3ee6541efa1563167d4d282b08.1665701210.git.boris@bur.io/

It looks like I need to change the test to cater the current behavior.

The current reclaim algorithm is consistent across all sizes, unlike before.

I will change the test to do the following:
- Write a small file
- Write a big file that crosses the reclaim limit
- Delete the big file
- Check that **only** the block group that contained the small file is
reclaimed, and the small file is relocated to a new block group.

Let me know if the flow of the test case is correct.

On 2022-12-05 17:04, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 05.12.22 15:53, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
>> Hi Johannes,
>>
>>> Btw, what ever happend to this patch?
>>
>> As I said before, I had trouble reproducing reclaim for 100G drive size,
>> and asked if you could reproduce the same on your end. I did not get any
>> reply to that.
>>
>> I wanted to discuss with you what I was seeing during ALPSS, but we never
>> got around that!
> 
> Ah right! I'll try to reproduce it on my end as well.
> 
> But even with that one problem it makes the test pass again on my other setups.
> 
> So I think it's still an improvement to the status quo. Can you maybe resend it,
> so it's again on Zorro's list?
> 
> Thanks,
> 	Johannes
> 
>