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

[Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>]

On Oct 25, 2022 / 00:42, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> Shinichiro/Yi,
> 
> On 10/23/22 17:50, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 2022 / 23:27, Yi Zhang wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 7:57 AM Shinichiro Kawasaki
> >> <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 21, 2022 / 21:42, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> I see, I find no reason to change the "minimal log size policy". Let's go with
> >>> 64MB log size to keep it.
> >>>
> >>> Yi, would you mind reposting v2 with size=64m?
> >> Sure, and before I post it, I want to ask for suggestions about some
> >> other code changes:
> >>
> >> After set log size with 64M, I found nvme/012 nvme/013 will be
> >> failed[1], and there was not enough space for fio with size=950m
> >> testing.
> >> Either [2] or [3] works, which one do you prefer, or do you have some
> >> other suggestion for it? Thanks.
> > 
> > Thank you for testing. I guess fio I/O size=950m was chosen subtracting some
> > super block and log size from 1GB NVME device size. Now we increase the log
> > size, then the I/O size 950m is larger than the usable xfs size, probably.
> > 
> > Chaitania, what' your thought about the fix approach? To keep the "minimal log
> > size policy", I guess the approach [3] to reduce fio I/O size to 900m is more
> > appropriate, but would like to hear your insight.
> 
> I'm fine with adjusting the size to it can fit with new minimum log
> sizes.

Thank you for the comment. Then let's go with the size 900m.

> 
> > 
> > 
> >  From Yi's observation, I found a couple of improvement opportunities which are
> > beyond scope of this fix. Here I note them as memorandum (patches are welcome :)
> > 
> > 1) Assuming nvme device size 1GB define in nvme/012 and nvme/013 has relation to
> >     the fio I/O size 950m defined in common/xfs, these values should be defined
> >     at single place. Probably we should define both in nvme/012 and nvme/013.
> 
> Agree.
> 
> > 
> > 2) The fio I/O size 950m is defined in _xfs_run_fio_verify_io() which is called
> >     from nvme/035. Then, it is implicitly assumed that TEST_DEV for nvme/035 has
> >     size 1GB (or larger). I found that nvme/035 fails with 512MB nvme device.
> >     We should fix this by calculating fio I/O size from TEST_DEV size. (Or
> >     require 1GB nvme device size for the test case.)
> > 
> 
> Also, agree on this.
> 
> Above two listed fixes should be done as a part of this fix only.
> 
> I'd expect to see a patch series to fix all the issues listed above,
> please CC me so I can review this with priority.

Thank you for these comments also. Yi already posted the series :)

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20221024061319.1133470-1-yi.zhang@redhat.com/

-- 
Shin'ichiro Kawasaki