From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B906C71153 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:01:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1351210AbjIDDBu (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Sep 2023 23:01:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40516 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230300AbjIDDBu (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Sep 2023 23:01:50 -0400 Received: from dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (unknown [45.249.212.51]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE413B6; Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail02.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.67.143]) by dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4RfD1g55b6z4f3jLd; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 11:01:43 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.129] (unknown [10.174.178.129]) by APP2 (Coremail) with SMTP id Syh0CgAHc2eWSPVkwFEtCQ--.17367S2; Mon, 04 Sep 2023 11:01:44 +0800 (CST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 11/11] ext4: run mballoc test with different layouts setting To: Ritesh Harjani , tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <87msy6kljt.fsf@doe.com> From: Kemeng Shi Message-ID: <456dffa7-1a28-0b11-1928-3bf31fc97074@huaweicloud.com> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 11:01:42 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87msy6kljt.fsf@doe.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CM-TRANSID: Syh0CgAHc2eWSPVkwFEtCQ--.17367S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxAF43KFWUCr47tr4xKFy3urg_yoW5tFy8pF ZFyF1Fkr4UWFsF93WSg34UZw4Svwn2yr48JryfWry8GFy3J3ykCF1DtryFgw1vqr4kJrnY vwn09F9rC3y5AaDanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUyKb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k2 6cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4 vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_tr0E3s1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7Cj xVAFwI0_Cr1j6rxdM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_GcCE3s1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv6xkF7I 0E14v26rxl6s0DM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40E x7xfMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r126r1DMcIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x 0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41lc7I2V7IY0VAS07AlzVAYIcxG8wCF04k20xvY0x0E wIxGrwCFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwC20s026c02F40E14v26r1j6r18MI8I3I0E74 80Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_JF0_Jw1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0 I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1lIxAIcVCF04 k26cxKx2IYs7xG6Fyj6rWUJwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF 7I0E14v26r4j6r4UJbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxUwMKuUUUUU X-CM-SenderInfo: 5vklyvpphqwq5kxd4v5lfo033gof0z/ X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org on 9/1/2023 10:36 PM, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > Kemeng Shi writes: > >> Use KUNIT_CASE_PARAM to run mbalaloc test with different layouts setting. > ^^^ mballoc > small nit below > >> >> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi >> --- >> fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ >> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c >> index d643c56ac003..af48a39c8ba2 100644 >> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c >> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c >> @@ -196,21 +196,11 @@ static int ext4_mb_mark_context_stub(struct ext4_mark_context *mc, >> return 0; >> } >> >> -#define TEST_BLOCKSIZE_BITS 10 >> -#define TEST_CLUSTER_BITS 3 >> -#define TEST_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP 8192 >> -#define TEST_GROUP_COUNT 4 >> -#define TEST_DESC_SIZE 64 >> #define TEST_GOAL_GROUP 1 >> static int mbt_kunit_init(struct kunit *test) >> { >> - struct mbt_ext4_block_layout layout = { >> - .blocksize_bits = TEST_BLOCKSIZE_BITS, >> - .cluster_bits = TEST_CLUSTER_BITS, >> - .blocks_per_group = TEST_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP, >> - .group_count = TEST_GROUP_COUNT, >> - .desc_size = TEST_DESC_SIZE, >> - }; >> + struct mbt_ext4_block_layout *layout = >> + (struct mbt_ext4_block_layout *)(test->param_value); >> struct super_block *sb; >> int ret; >> >> @@ -218,7 +208,7 @@ static int mbt_kunit_init(struct kunit *test) >> if (sb == NULL) >> return -ENOMEM; >> >> - mbt_init_sb_layout(sb, &layout); >> + mbt_init_sb_layout(sb, layout); >> >> ret = mbt_ctx_init(sb); >> if (ret != 0) { >> @@ -304,9 +294,43 @@ static void test_new_blocks_simple(struct kunit *test) >> "unexpectedly get block when no block is available"); >> } >> >> +static const struct mbt_ext4_block_layout mbt_test_layouts[] = { >> + { >> + .blocksize_bits = 10, >> + .cluster_bits = 3, >> + .blocks_per_group = 8192, >> + .group_count = 4, >> + .desc_size = 64, >> + }, >> + { >> + .blocksize_bits = 12, >> + .cluster_bits = 3, >> + .blocks_per_group = 8192, >> + .group_count = 4, >> + .desc_size = 64, >> + }, >> + { >> + .blocksize_bits = 18, > > 64k blocksize is more common due to platforms with 64k pagesize like > Power and sometimes arm64. I would rather make it 16 here. > > I tested it on Power - Sure, I will make it 16 in next version. Thanks! > > [ 2.546687][ T1] KTAP version 1 > [ 2.547123][ T1] 1..2 > [ 2.547447][ T1] KTAP version 1 > [ 2.547927][ T1] # Subtest: ext4_mballoc_test > [ 2.548562][ T1] 1..1 > [ 2.548933][ T1] KTAP version 1 > [ 2.549457][ T1] # Subtest: test_new_blocks_simple > [ 2.549550][ T108] kunit_try_catch (108) used greatest stack depth: 14512 bytes left > [ 2.549644][ T1] ok 1 block_bits=10 cluster_bits=3 blocks_per_group=8192 group_count=4 desc_size=64 > [ 2.552780][ T110] kunit_try_catch (110) used greatest stack depth: 14464 bytes left > [ 2.552882][ T1] ok 2 block_bits=12 cluster_bits=3 blocks_per_group=8192 group_count=4 desc_size=64 > [ 2.555909][ T1] ok 3 block_bits=18 cluster_bits=3 blocks_per_group=8192 group_count=4 desc_size=64 > [ 2.557184][ T1] # test_new_blocks_simple: pass:3 fail:0 skip:0 total:3 > [ 2.557186][ T1] ok 1 test_new_blocks_simple > [ 2.558083][ T1] # Totals: pass:3 fail:0 skip:0 total:3 > [ 2.558688][ T1] ok 1 ext4_mballoc_test > > Looks good to me. Feel free to add - > > Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) >