public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfsprogs: mkfs refactor
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 13:14:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171003201400.GF6503@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171003200726.GK3666@dastard>

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 07:07:26AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 10:16:04AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 07:06:07PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Hi Eric,
> > > 
> > > I've put the latest mkfs refactor code that I have up in place
> > > you can pull it from. I've rebased it against the current for-next
> > > tree (4.13.1 release) and fixed all the problems that xfstests
> > > exposes. The only thing I haven't fixed is xfs/191 that does mkfs
> > > command line behaviour verification because the refactored version
> > > fixes several problems that the old mkfs didn't handle correctly
> > > (e.g. being able to specify certain things like agsize in blocks or
> > > sectors).
> > > 
> > > There's a small filter patch needed for xfstests that I'll post in
> > > a reply to this pull request that will filter out the new "defaults
> > > sourced from ..." output and so prevent spurious xfstests failures.
> > > 
> > > If you want I can tag the branch with a signed tag for you to pull
> > > from (same process as Linus prefers) rather than just a branch in a
> > > tree. If you'd prefer that I post this as patches instead, then let
> > > me know and I'll bomb the list instead.
> > 
> > I had a look at mkfs-refactor.  It looks ok to me (I defer to Eric on
> > the question of pull req. vs. patchbomb) though I have one question:
> > 
> > calculate_log_size calls max_trans_res, and max_trans_res assembles a
> > fake struct xfs_mount in order to call libxfs_log_calc_minimum_size.
> > I've fixed a few mkfs bugs over the past couple of years that all stem
> > from us forgetting to propagate superblock settings from the
> > configuration we're building in main() into the fake xfs_mount->m_sb
> > that we use to calculate the minimum log size, which results in a
> > disagreement between the kernel and mkfs as to what is the minimum log
> > size for a given fs configuration.  This disagreement pops up in the
> > form of a freshly mkfs'd 500MB filesystem immediately failing to mount.
> > 
> > With this branch applied it looks like we've nearly finished filling out
> > the real xfs_mount->m_sb when we call calculate_log_size, so could we
> > refactor setup_superblock to set all the non-log superblock fields in
> > the real m_sb and then pass that directly into max_trans_res so that we
> > can memcpy the real superblock settings into the fake struct xfs_mount?
> 
> Yes, I plan on making further cleanups like that. There are a few
> others, like the remaining uses of the global block size and sector
> size variables because the parameter structures are not fed into
> number conversion functions that use them.
> 
> > Doing that will eliminate a whole class of "we forgot that we have to
> > set sb_newfield in setup_superblock /and/ in max_trans_res and now mkfs
> > creates broken filesystems" bugs.  Even now there are small
> > discrepancies between (for example) tr_itruncate.tr_logres in the kernel
> > and in mkfs, which make me nervous.  AFAICT the discrepancies result in
> > mkfs using a minimum log size that is larger than what the kernel
> > calculates, so there's no user-visible badness.
> 
> Getting rid of the max_trans_res problem will be good, but it won't
> completely fix the problem up.  Other nasties in this area that need
> further cleanup is the units that stripe configuration are passed
> around in, when we store the log stripe unit into the superblock,
> documenting what the values in the sb variable are supposed to be,
> how sector size and blocksize affects LSU, etc. These were all
> things I tripped over that led to similar "why doesn't this
> filesystem mount/crash log recovery?" issues.

Ok, just making sure it was on your radar. :)

--D

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-03 20:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-03  8:06 [GIT PULL] xfsprogs: mkfs refactor Dave Chinner
2017-10-03  8:21 ` fstests: update mkfs.xfs filters for new refactoring Dave Chinner
2017-10-03 17:16 ` [GIT PULL] xfsprogs: mkfs refactor Darrick J. Wong
2017-10-03 20:07   ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-03 20:14     ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2017-10-06 18:01 ` Eric Sandeen
2017-10-06 18:18   ` Eric Sandeen
2017-10-09  0:42   ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-09  3:11     ` Eric Sandeen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20171003201400.GF6503@magnolia \
    --to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox