Re: fstest failure due to filesystem size for 16k, 32k and 64k FSB

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 09:34:23PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
> >> What should be the approach to solve this issue? 2 options that I had in my mind:
> >>
> >> 1. Similar to [2], we could add a small hack in mkfs xfs to ignore the log space
> >> requirement while running fstests for these profiles.
> >>
> >> 2. Increase the size of filesystem under test to accommodate these profiles. It could
> >> even be a conditional increase in filesystem size if the FSB > 16k to reduce the impact
> >> on existing FS test time for 4k FSB.
> >>
> >> Let me know what would be the best way to move forward.
> >>
> >> Here are the results:
> >>
> >> Test environment:
> >> kernel Release: 6.8.0-rc1
> >> xfsprogs: 6.5.0
> >> Architecture: aarch64
> >> Page size: 64k
> >>
> >> Test matrix:
> >>
> >> | Test        | 32k rmapbt=0 | 32k rmapbt=1 | 64k rmapbt=0 | 64k rmapbt=1 |
> >> | --------    | ---------    | ---------    | ---------    | ---------    |
> >> | generic/042 |     fail     |     fail     |     fail     |     fail     |
> >> | generic/081 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
> >> | generic/108 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
> >> | generic/455 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
> >> | generic/457 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
> >> | generic/482 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
> >> | generic/704 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
> >> | generic/730 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
> >> | generic/731 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
> >> | shared/298  |     pass     |     pass     |     pass     |     fail     |
> > 
> > I noticed test failures on these tests when running djwong-wtf:
> > generic/042
> > generic/081
> > generic/108
> > generic/219
> > generic/305
> > generic/326
> > generic/562
> > generic/704
> > xfs/093
> > xfs/113
> > xfs/161
> > xfs/262
> > xfs/508
> > xfs/604
> > xfs/709
> > 
> 
> Ok, there are some more tests that I didn't catch. I will check them out.
> 
> > Still sorting through all of them, but a large portion of them are the
> > same failure to format due to minimum log size constraints.  I'd bump
> > them up to ~500M (or whatever makes them work) since upstream doesn't
> > really support small filesystems anymore.
> 
> Thanks for the reply. So we can have a small `if` conditional block for xfs
> to have fs size = 500M in generic test cases.

I'd suggest creating a helper where you pass in the fs size you want and
it rounds that up to the minimum value.  That would then get passed to
_scratch_mkfs_sized or _scsi_debug_get_dev.

(testing this as we speak...)

> We do this irrespective of filesystem blocksizes right? If we do that, then we can
> remove the special conditional that allows tiny filesystems for fstests in mkfs
> as well.

I dunno.  In the ideal world we'd figure out the fsblock size, but
divining that from the MKFS_OPTIONS is hard fugly string parsing.

--D

> 
> --
> Pankaj
> 
> 
>