From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40307F37 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:43:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5DBC8F8050 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id fCHAz2GAm82ggePt (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:43:08 -0400 From: Dwight Engen Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 091, 240, 268 fix for xfs on 4k sector hard drive Message-ID: <20130725144308.4c4a5f79@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <51F142E7.4050500@sandeen.net> References: <20130724143208.34b77534@oracle.com> <20130724235739.GR19986@dastard> <51F0AB56.7020705@hardwarefreak.com> <20130725102754.7c564098@oracle.com> <51F142E7.4050500@sandeen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Jeff Moyer , stan@hardwarefreak.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:23:19 -0500 Eric Sandeen wrote: [...] > (You can probably mkfs w/ an explicit 512 sector size, and confirm > that 512-byte DIOs work again) Hi Eric, yep, confirmed that doing mkfs.xfs -b size=1024 (used 1024 instead of 512 so that 240 would run) makes 091, 240, and 268 work without my changes. > bleah, perhaps that was a mistake - or perhaps we need to fix > kernelspace to prefer physical-size IOs, but allow logical-size if a > DIO requests it. ext4 and btrfs did work, so perhaps that is what they are doing, I have not looked yet. [... test 240] > >>>> -logical_block_size=`blockdev --getss $TEST_DEV` > >>>> +logical_block_size=`blockdev --getpbsz $TEST_DEV` > >>> > >>> FWIW, that doesn't make much sense - putting the physical block > >>> size into a variable named "logical_block_size"..... > > > > Yeah, that name wouldn't make much sense with this change. Its > > actually being used to compare to the fs block size and then its > > passed into aiodio_sparse2 as offset. 091 and 268 use the more > > generic name bsize, should I can change it to that? > > Well, that was put there with: > > commit 2dbd21dc152d89715263990c881025f17c7b632e > Author: Jeff Moyer > Date: Fri Feb 11 15:20:02 2011 -0500 > > 240: only run when the file system block size is larger than the > disk sector size > This test really wants to test partial file-system block I/Os. > Thus, if the device has a 4K sector size, and the file system has a > 4K block size, there's really no point in running the test. In the > attached patch, I check that the fs block size is larger than the > device's logical block size, which should cover a 4k device block > size with a 16k fs block size. > > I verified that the patched test does not run on my 4k sector > device with a 4k file system. I also verified that it continues to > run on a 512 byte logical sector device with a 4k file system block > size. > Signed-off-by: Jeff Moyer > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig The name was added in this commit, and the message would lead me to believe that Jeff intended for the test to not run on a 4k physical sector disk with a 4k fs, so is the "logical_block_size" name a misnomer? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs