Re: [PATCH blktests] common/xfs: ignore the 32M log size during mkfs.xfs

Chaitanya Kulkarni
2022-10-21T21:42:35Z

On 10/21/22 01:58, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2022 / 19:18, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
>> On 10/19/22 07:19, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> On 10/19/22 1:16 AM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/22 22:12, Yi Zhang wrote:
>>>>> The new minimum size for the xfs log is 64MB which introudced from
>>>>> xfsprogs v5.19.0, let's ignore it, or nvme/013 will be failed at:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> instead of removing it set to 64MB ?
>>>
>>> What is the advantage of hard-coding any log size? By doing so you are
>>> overriding mkfs's own best-practice heuristics, and you might run into
>>> other failures in the future.
>>>
>>> Is there a reason to not just use the defaults?
>>>
>>
>> I think the point here to use the minimal XFS setup.
>>
>> Does default size is minimal ? or at least we should document
>> what the size it is.
>
> As far as I read `man mkfs.xfs`, it is not minimal. It changes depending on the
> filesystem size.
>
> To have minimal XFS setup, do we need to care other parameters than log size?
> I'm looking at 'man mkfs.xfs' and it mentions data section size and some other
> size related options.
>
> Two more questions have come up in my mind:
>
> - Did we have nvme driver or block layer issues related to xfs log size in the
> past? If so, it is reasonable to specify it.
>

I think creating a minimal setup is a part of the testcase and we should
not change it, unless there is a explicit reason for doing so.

> - When we see failures of xfs user test cases (nvme/012,013,035), is xfs log
> size useful to debug?
>

I hope so ..

-ck