From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:47650 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727006AbeILU3Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:29:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 23:25:08 +0800 From: Zorro Lang Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/119: fix too small log size error Message-ID: <20180912152507.GF8382@dhcp-12-152.nay.redhat.com> References: <20180912110404.32673-1-zlang@redhat.com> <20180912131509.GA17817@desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180912131509.GA17817@desktop> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Eryu Guan Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 09:15:09PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 07:04:04PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > xfs/119 fails on 4k hard sector size device if reflink (with/without > > rmapbt) is enabled: > > > > # mkfs.xfs -f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=0 -l version=2,size=2560b,su=64k /dev/sdf > > log size 2560 blocks too small, minimum size is 2688 blocks > > # mkfs.xfs -f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1 -l version=2,size=2560b,su=64k /dev/sdf > > log size 2560 blocks too small, minimum size is 4368 blocks > > > > So remove log size parameter and run mkfs.xfs again if it fails. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang > > --- > > > > I saw Dave changed the log size once in commit: > > d0a3cc5a xfs/104: log size too small for 4k sector drives > > > > But it's still not enough after we have reflink feature now. I don't > > know why this case need "-l version=2,size=2560b,su=64k", > > if someone learns about this case, please tell me how to change this > > case properly. If the log size parameter is not necessary, I'd like > > to remove it. > > I guess we still need the log size param, as the test is testing > "freeze/thaws on a small log fs", please see commit 3ebdf78c16cb ("Test > out pv#942130 where the unmount rec is not ungranting log space. Merge > of master-melb:xfs-cmds:23759a by kenmcd."), but we don't have much > background information from that ancient commit log.. Yeah, I can't understand the pv#942130 meaning, and can't find it by Google. Does anyone know the background, then tell me if it must use the minimum log size? And I find xfs_mkfs always trys to use the smallest log size which it can use by using libxfs_log_calc_minimum_size() (but the real calculator is more complicated)... Thanks, Zorro > > Thanks, > Eryu > > > > > Thanks, > > Zorro > > > > tests/xfs/119 | 9 ++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/119 b/tests/xfs/119 > > index bf7f1ca8..d507aacf 100755 > > --- a/tests/xfs/119 > > +++ b/tests/xfs/119 > > @@ -40,7 +40,14 @@ sync > > > > export MKFS_OPTIONS="-l version=2,size=2560b,su=64k" > > export MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o logbsize=64k" > > -_scratch_mkfs_xfs >/dev/null > > +_scratch_mkfs_xfs >/dev/null 2>&1 > > +# The specified log size maybe too small if new features (e.g: reflink > > +# or/and rmapbt) is enabled. So if mkfs fails, don't specify log size > > +# and try to mkfs again. > > +if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then > > + export MKFS_OPTIONS="-l version=2,su=64k" > > + _scratch_mkfs_xfs >/dev/null > > +fi > > > > _scratch_mount > > > > -- > > 2.14.4 > >