From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 C43412E975F for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 23:56:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762905372; cv=none; b=I17OQHUcE2BoKu8mGxlKO9Sae11ZwkR1PNt7wnD4YTdMITOJpVQhzH4nCBSokmi6y7BtKYRr7njxZgHvAcweZIKiXWxCADdQc8PKeqUvvZxZohDagZw4R6SU+wzouZteUdKPmOr4yDdm05ASNUFxV7AMNNcsS8xPRUJJhA4x4YM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762905372; c=relaxed/simple; bh=V7lqaORY13jdcbkQEvKnjzzIQsMG1zkCaOpl643v+/g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=e4j0NajmEy8aTaZqpjKsaZKAfqib0g05mXS2ODFLzycDj6qGYHqyPFWeAKjp7gDRh296+Vej/tG8EQC/ovf1pe76PZ8QvGuLumF4mMQGtn+D32hn6ovmqnKf4C87LhiKDbbgkSuemcJuxEAzjt7Wsoh69au1ew5ZdvVnyEWPtwo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=pgyH4533; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="pgyH4533" Received: from trampoline.thunk.org (pool-173-48-122-154.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.122.154]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 5ABNsqN2007851 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Nov 2025 18:54:53 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1762905296; bh=IEhZCiRNjHSpJW4/0o8Nhs80bNQUsZLsSRSzAibyQAA=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pgyH4533BOtMMzmYa869FZFPsJpE4tzycitYk07TtWVz7X44vyqiqVa9XNkc78dT1 rQjhZB095xKmjvI/Eo8N00oAK5bJo3DbFy/rmCxjSdPa0F44uwi5N0Wnc6jscfPnsm iJMJUMqTQ42AutyUTgRw89djnyi3tgtiFUlYdoopsu/Bf2OrZsrQfxfam4YhidcZU/ KkCY83c0ui6uJwZ4OU6yxVN7CeTE/UqrAI4AoDPDgMm5qZmDeBWkuifycDA6PVZWMp Agj5o/rD6byjbID6/1m1yVqKdIeLQTA41SnOARvX4x04H7HWd8g81HMNmUx2rqFE5m 2wNmVWpzn4aKQ== Received: by trampoline.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 5C7822E00D9; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 18:54:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 18:54:52 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: libaokun@huaweicloud.com Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, jack@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pankajraghav.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, ebiggers@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com, chengzhihao1@huawei.com, libaokun1@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/24] ext4: enable block size larger than page size Message-ID: <20251111235452.GM2988753@mit.edu> References: <20251107144249.435029-1-libaokun@huaweicloud.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251107144249.435029-1-libaokun@huaweicloud.com> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:42:25PM +0800, libaokun@huaweicloud.com wrote: > `kvm-xfstests -c ext4/all -g auto` has been executed with no new failures. > `kvm-xfstests -c ext4/64k -g auto` has been executed and no Oops was > observed, but allocation failures for large folios may trigger warn_alloc() > warnings. I'm seeing some new failures. ext4/4k -g auto is running without any failures, but when I tried to run ext4/64, I got: ext4/64k: 607 tests, 16 failures, 101 skipped, 7277 seconds Failures: ext4/033 generic/472 generic/493 generic/494 generic/495 generic/496 generic/497 generic/554 generic/569 generic/620 generic/636 generic/641 generic/643 generic/759 generic/760 Flaky: generic/251: 80% (4/5) Totals: 671 tests, 101 skipped, 79 failures, 0 errors, 6782s Some of the test failures may be because I was only using a 5G test and scratch device, and with a 64k block sze, that might be too small. But I tried using a 20G test device, and ext3/033 is still failing but with a different error signature: --- tests/ext4/033.out 2025-11-06 22:04:13.000000000 -0500 +++ /results/ext4/results-64k/ext4/033.out.bad 2025-11-11 17:57:31.149710364 -0500 @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@ QA output created by 033 Figure out block size Format huge device +mount: /vdf: fsconfig() failed: Structure needs cleaning. + dmesg(1) may have more information after failed mount system call. I took a look at the generc/472 and that appears to be a swap on file failure: root@kvm-xfstests:~# /vtmp/mke2fs.static -t ext4 -b 65536 -Fq /dev/vdc Warning: blocksize 65536 not usable on most systems. /dev/vdc contains a ext4 file system created on Tue Nov 11 18:02:13 2025 root@kvm-xfstests:~# mount /dev/vdc /vdc root@kvm-xfstests:~# fallocate -l 1G /vdc/swap root@kvm-xfstests:~# mkswap /vdc/swap mkswap: /vdc/swap: insecure permissions 0644, fix with: chmod 0600 /vdc/swap Setting up swapspace version 1, size = 1024 MiB (1073737728 bytes) no label, UUID=a6298248-abf1-42a1-b124-2f6b3be7f597 root@kvm-xfstests:~# swapon /vdc/swap swapon: /vdc/swap: insecure permissions 0644, 0600 suggested. swapon: /vdc/swap: swapon failed: Invalid argument root@kvm-xfstests:~# A number of the other tests (generic/493, generic/494, generic/495, generic/496, generic/497, generic/554) are all swapfile tests. I'm not sure why you're not seeing these issues; what version of xfstests are you using? I recently uploaded a new test appliance[1] can you try rerunning your tests with the latest test appliance for kvm-xfstests? [1] https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/kvm-xfstests; - Ted