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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAE91C4320A for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2021 12:36:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1F560FF2 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2021 12:36:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231311AbhHHMgd (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Aug 2021 08:36:33 -0400 Received: from out20-109.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.20.109]:54860 "EHLO out20-109.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229504AbhHHMgd (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Aug 2021 08:36:33 -0400 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=CONTINUE;BC=0.07566925|-1;CH=green;DM=|CONTINUE|false|;DS=CONTINUE|ham_regular_dialog|0.177431-0.00443938-0.818129;FP=0|0|0|0|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=ay29a033018047207;MF=guan@eryu.me;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=6;RT=6;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---.Kx0Oam-_1628426171; Received: from localhost(mailfrom:guan@eryu.me fp:SMTPD_---.Kx0Oam-_1628426171) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(10.147.41.143); Sun, 08 Aug 2021 20:36:12 +0800 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2021 20:36:11 +0800 From: Eryu Guan To: Ritesh Harjani Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o , "Darrick J . Wong" , Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 5/9] generic/031: Fix the test case for 64k blocksize config Message-ID: References: <20210803050033.meopotfeooo6n4gu@riteshh-domain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210803050033.meopotfeooo6n4gu@riteshh-domain> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 10:30:33AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > On 21/08/02 12:00AM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:57:58AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > > > This test fails with blocksize 64k since the test assumes 4k blocksize > > > in fcollapse param. This patch fixes that and also tests for 64k > > > blocksize. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani > > > --- > > > tests/generic/031 | 14 +++++++++----- > > > tests/generic/031.out | 16 ++++++++-------- > > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/031 b/tests/generic/031 > > > index 313ce9ff..11961c54 100755 > > > --- a/tests/generic/031 > > > +++ b/tests/generic/031 > > > @@ -26,11 +26,16 @@ testfile=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile > > > _scratch_mkfs > /dev/null 2>&1 > > > _scratch_mount > > > > > > +# fcollapse need offset and len to be multiple of blocksize for filesystems > > > +# So let's make the offsets and len required for fcollapse multiples of 64K > > > +# so that it works for all configurations (including on dax on 64K page size > > > +# systems) > > > +fact=$((65536/4096)) > > > $XFS_IO_PROG -f \ > > > - -c "pwrite 185332 55756" \ > > > - -c "fcollapse 28672 40960" \ > > > - -c "pwrite 133228 63394" \ > > > - -c "fcollapse 0 4096" \ > > > + -c "pwrite $((185332*fact + 12)) $((55756*fact + 12))" \ > > > > Where does this 12 come from? > A random number so that the offset and length are not bocksize aligned. > If you see the final .out file, you will see the offset of the writes > remains the same with and before this patch. > > > And I'm wondering if this still reproduces the original bug. > I am not sure how to trigger this. I know that this test was intended for > bs < ps cases. If someone can help me / point me to the kernel fix for this, > I can try to reproduce the original bug too. > > I found this link for this test patch series. Couldn't find the kernel fixes > link though. > https://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg00340.html I think it's a regression test for this patchset. https://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg29807.html > > > > > > And looks like that the original test setups came from a specific > > fsstress or fsx run, and aimed to the specific bug, perhaps we could > > require the test with <= 4k block size, and _notrun in 64k case. > > It would be good to know whether this code could trigger the original bug or > not. Then we need not make _notrun for 64k case. Agreed, if we could make sure that updated test still triggers the original bug, there's no reason _notrun for 64k case. Thanks, Eryu