From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-f194.google.com ([209.85.214.194]:36515 "EHLO mail-pl1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726320AbfFZDSE (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 23:18:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:17:57 +0800 From: Eryu Guan Subject: Re: [PATCH] shared/011: run on all file system that support cgroup writeback Message-ID: <20190626031757.GB7943@desktop> References: <20190624134407.21365-1-hch@lst.de> <20190624150839.GB6350@mit.edu> <20190624151910.GJ5387@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190624151910.GJ5387@magnolia> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Theodore Ts'o , Christoph Hellwig , fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 08:19:10AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:08:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 03:44:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Run the cgroup writeback test on xfs, for which I've just posted > > > a patch to support cgroup writeback as well as ext2 and f2fs, which > > > have supported cgroup writeback for a while now. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > > --- > > > tests/shared/011 | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/shared/011 b/tests/shared/011 > > > index a0ac375d..96ce9d1c 100755 > > > --- a/tests/shared/011 > > > +++ b/tests/shared/011 > > > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ rm -f $seqres.full > > > # real QA test starts here > > > > > > # Modify as appropriate. > > > -_supported_fs ext4 btrfs > > > +_supported_fs ext2 ext4 f2fs btrfs xfs > > > > Per my comments in another e-mail thread, given how many of the > > primary file systems support cgroup-aware writeback, maybe we should > > just remove the _supported_fs line and move this test to generic? > > > > Whether we like it or not, there are more and more userspace tools > > which assume that cgroup-aware writeback is a thing. > > > > Alternatively, maybe we should have some standardized way so the > > kernel can signal whether or not a particular mounted file system > > supports cgroup-aware writeback? > > I prefer this second option because I'd rather the test suite do the > work to figure out if cgroup aware writeback is enabled and therefore > worth testing rather than making everyone's QA department to add another > conditional known-failure entry for when they want to run new fstests on > some old LTS/distro kernel. Agreed, a standard way to query cgroup-aware writeback support status would be the best. Thanks, Eryu > > --D > > > - Ted