From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E43C247773; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:08:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710360516; cv=none; b=EiU77nLxyK/eb3sbbx7R7GEbFAAXJtcW/CZ0kAJkLOM8rZAW1ejDuc2RIwOPaQGpdcIPg4SyA1Y4o0BcjkO0alk555buQVZpftH6nkfRGLBVlHyQVqgX1DKKTaJuh/KK1dM4gHaRyNiWchCIwpVRWbIx9w06tlrCrLUiAt7FFoM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710360516; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xL1hMQOGd/TKt9/7TXApd7Gg4MrmHinp2oldxa79bP4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=N+rcZXHEUlo97UX2vbdM9yZYTvf74Xczygo+nxDPT2GZGdphAfpq1hwiFdbw3B0qeMEgBnheCCLwLh77uw1KismkDGc7kulC72GNw0CEJBtHStNnRQlDg4rt3ztayLMWR82p/dLHmxNneVPUkx3xbEs/LFTJBLzm3L8QmFf4gEQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=I2/85bii; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="I2/85bii" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F943C433F1; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:08:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1710360515; bh=xL1hMQOGd/TKt9/7TXApd7Gg4MrmHinp2oldxa79bP4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=I2/85biiBGq7ZohRHg9xO6q6rtDxW1+IZ+AfeR87wpn+JIr1f+IHBMq4QHeaBvcUM 2f2ff/J99hLaweuAcvoFuq9pykK1EOC8VoxQr3bL3GR3b+sVSLqUC2D4Qy9PkrqBlF h0on7m5R9XvjxqNdmWkstZG0aLXJYkN5rnW2x3d85njtIXPfKOtZFfMtn9hk0MWEkN Okf7Qob3RkK5YfGDyP/Z9m4ubNaRdVhGR8+1f2oAWWcOxoolz5HtuYki9diFyymzzP TgQARtV1Fh5AijernEyA/hiT/pFo9/VmF+Tl4nCWkFBLVXZWHSNqQmDSVxvFS9L/u8 zDIp5jNh3kkHA== Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:08:34 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Pankaj Raghav Cc: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" , zlang@redhat.com, fstests@vger.kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, gost.dev@samsung.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs/558: scale blk IO size based on the filesystem blksz Message-ID: <20240313200834.GP1927156@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20240122111751.449762-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com> <20240122111751.449762-2-kernel@pankajraghav.com> <20240122165336.GA6226@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 06:23:16PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav wrote: > On 22/01/2024 17:53, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:17:50PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > >> From: Pankaj Raghav > >> > >> This test fails for >= 64k filesystem block size on a 4k PAGE_SIZE > >> system(see LBS efforts[1]). Scale the `blksz` based on the filesystem > > > Fails how, specifically? > > I basically get this in 558.out.bad when I set filesystem block size to be 64k: > QA output created by 558 > Expected to hear about writeback iomap invalidations? > Silence is golden > > But I do see that iomap invalidations are happening for 16k and 32k, which makes it pass > the test for those block sizes. > > My suspicion was that we don't see any invalidations because of the blksz fixed > at 64k in the test, which will contain one FSB in the case of 64k block size. > > Let me know if I am missing something. Nope, that sounds good and fixes the problems I saw. So: Tested-by: Darrick J. Wong And if you add to the commit message that this test specifically fixes the "Expected to hear about writeback iomap invalidations?" message for 64k filesystems, then: Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong --D > > > > --D > > > >> block size instead of fixing it as 64k so that we do get some iomap > >> invalidations while doing concurrent writes. > >> > >> Cap the blksz to be at least 64k to retain the same behaviour as before > >> for smaller filesystem blocksizes. > >> > >> [1] LBS effort: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230915183848.1018717-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com/ > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav > >> --- > >> tests/xfs/558 | 7 ++++++- > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tests/xfs/558 b/tests/xfs/558 > >> index 9e9b3be8..270f458c 100755 > >> --- a/tests/xfs/558 > >> +++ b/tests/xfs/558 > >> @@ -127,7 +127,12 @@ _scratch_mount >> $seqres.full > >> $XFS_IO_PROG -c 'chattr -x' $SCRATCH_MNT &> $seqres.full > >> _require_pagecache_access $SCRATCH_MNT > >> > >> -blksz=65536 > >> +min_blksz=65536 > >> +file_blksz=$(_get_file_block_size "$SCRATCH_MNT") > >> +blksz=$(( 8 * $file_blksz )) > >> + > >> +blksz=$(( blksz > min_blksz ? blksz : min_blksz )) > >> + > >> _require_congruent_file_oplen $SCRATCH_MNT $blksz > >> > >> # Make sure we have sufficient extent size to create speculative CoW > >> -- > >> 2.43.0 > >> >