From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ECF7167D98 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 13:08:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724850516; cv=none; b=FU5Tp+eQW1/4SE76OTYRLV+jZuKaanjDMH3WhjvvBXvzpJnXuO1xp5hrb7eFqvY+GCWtDoM6w6gHVIgIpwlbdzUl8xE/ygr8OXxwmFyOxwPUkIZYZ2VBq86ZvTKyciaY6MXidfrRgJRgGZ64N7CZCesoQe8suBp2wEvD1cmaLo4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724850516; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Y7bzSuUD/3RkXrEZlRqSite5c3G1gSCYzekpQk7jeQU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=atM1R3V8JtXlTGbZwfaEF5MLr6dyqFq3g90tVHGWaceIvltb2VNjNRmyJef+6PVsjH3q4jlfpcudbJxCoZkTvKyqW8opcNj2ry6e6MT9k51A1x55EYmmSp0ebPcRaUKjepUZJ+bNh0bEmNtXyhbivwqF584J1ZP2qf08N1gbAhU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.254]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Wv4TB5wC2zyQfQ; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:07:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemd500012.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.221.188.25]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67390180105; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:08:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.111.176] (10.67.111.176) by kwepemd500012.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.34; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:08:30 +0800 Message-ID: <2a0a26e9-ae51-4e69-aa84-30681dc6284f@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:08:30 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH -next 00/14] btrfs: Cleaned up folio->page conversion To: Josef Bacik CC: , , , , , References: <20240822013714.3278193-1-lizetao1@huawei.com> <20240823195051.GD2237731@perftesting> <20240823211522.GA2305223@perftesting> <20240826140818.GA2393039@perftesting> From: Li Zetao In-Reply-To: <20240826140818.GA2393039@perftesting> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggpeml500014.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.63) To kwepemd500012.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.25) 在 2024/8/26 22:08, Josef Bacik 写道: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 05:15:22PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 03:50:51PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:37:00AM +0800, Li Zetao wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> In btrfs, because there are some interfaces that do not use folio, >>>> there is page-folio-page mutual conversion. This patch set should >>>> clean up folio-page conversion as much as possible and use folio >>>> directly to reduce invalid conversions. >>>> >>>> This patch set starts with the rectification of function parameters, >>>> using folio as parameters directly. And some of those functions have >>>> already been converted to folio internally, so this part has little >>>> impact. >>>> >>>> I have tested with fsstress more than 10 hours, and no problems were >>>> found. For the convenience of reviewing, I try my best to only modify >>>> a single interface in each patch. >>>> >>>> Josef also worked on converting pages to folios, and this patch set was >>>> inspired by him: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1722022376.git.josef@toxicpanda.com/ >>>> >>> >>> This looks good, I'm running it through the CI. If that comes out clean then >>> I'll put my reviewed-by on it and push it to our for-next branch. The CI run >>> can be seen here >>> >>> https://github.com/btrfs/linux/actions/runs/10531503734 >>> >> >> Looks like the compression stuff panic'ed, the run has to finish before it >> collects the dmesg so IDK where it failed yet, but I'd go over the compression >> stuff again to see if you can spot it. When the whole run finishes there will >> be test artifacts you can get to. If you don't have permissions (I honestly >> don't know how the artifacts permission stuff works) then no worries, I'll grab >> it in the morning and send you the test and dmesg of what fell over. Thanks, >> > > They all fell over, so I suggest running fstests against your series before you > resend. btrfs/069 paniced on one machine, btrfs/060 paniced on one machine. > None of the machines passsed without panicing. Thanks, > Thank you for your test. When btrfs/060 and btrfs/069 failed due to my carelessness, Dan has issued a patch[1] to fix it. After applying his patch, it was still found that 3 test cases reported errors. I reverted my patchset and the error still persists, so the errors may not be caused by my patch. Below is the test log: Failures: btrfs/012 btrfs/249 btrfs/284 Failed 3 of 322 tests My xfstests project is forked from https://github.com/kdave/xfstests.git > Josef > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20240827153739.GY25962@twin.jikos.cz/T/#m3f3e28dad05a9c8385a72f5503a5b9c130b44c04 Thanks, Li Zetao.