From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f181.google.com (mail-pl1-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BB06811EE; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 19:42:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.181 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706038936; cv=none; b=DqqNeCHAo15jGIfXwSp1RBFp/Y2C9BTS0B8Q+x1DrLNFmiiPyC6wpvs2X+jtt91+M7EVnntctTOEb4jg4fjw7Cv3/Cp8hVY0r+gPGxoaCM4syklLWgCbxR+fzncULwxo1fEuzA9DMlkdtHFLt/1/1VSnKppo3JmzX1Q8ZQ2k850= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706038936; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MgOh8qSAXOjVsURMY3TnuTHbI3cuWIPLfVNWhmhhrFI=; h=Date:Message-Id:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To; b=HxhUTzfxaO9/PKaCK9uqRlMptxH2iGW+4hUP3rS0ogTthI84jdo2tnZS9cy/GFcIQxNCt0lsQdDfFqY04u+fLM9TBxuecRbJB1HJ2znGpcPQvmBSvxue4ueb6p3RRGl5VmnSV9OXigHs9KZNXH23qFnI08lrXqa2NrDDKlpfV7g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=CnyelzOk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.181 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="CnyelzOk" Received: by mail-pl1-f181.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1d71c844811so23216995ad.3; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 11:42:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1706038933; x=1706643733; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:message-id:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=nOZhThgLXrk3cTydAduZLUncFHwC096MLmwwKuykovA=; b=CnyelzOkgv6xDYVC7yWR6wg5yoYS1SQ1Z26JkuU6aCR2/d1pHgN/TIq2/S3Zdhiqry r1OWymm5aCj+47mdTmoFSjW2N5UoBaivhqoB3NUAv/l8ObbDcoqICpsZEmMEgQSI7gNS YDXUqINGZdFcHaVuaw0JGG3S4EedYG//v0+oRJ06VdDejDbsKBWBJotA2pWCB0q0sdsg q7fhu5Jg9iSZaphuSJ0UnEWYWUEOUFad9mmkM/nIHfA4YsZYGm08quI7HzGgySiMnq2d DQNI29kVYyNt0Szq5zuF53uj8Xci3r16n6PBQAL0P66X3R9Wf7ICReblRCa8tZa/hpPb XmcA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706038933; x=1706643733; h=in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:message-id:date:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=nOZhThgLXrk3cTydAduZLUncFHwC096MLmwwKuykovA=; b=PH5jNoDWDoDFZMtqGwed9eI9HJhYzrvDKNums1+Ziry3Hme0GbfwYUY0ILU7YGYDEO ZWTWyCJw8GhXo6hfvsquABxhGLmGwVJhWQo2gqgK/WcvX6fhICUcOggOBenfBzYhNEW8 NaXeiG0NOWanSoYUwVKirWyifXD1TuQQk6BVOG9vLXuyt6TpWjfAEPWlG2tBmOUsi756 OvfPMOEEuSV6IAHCIN2b41CsnLqovi9JGBmarlO688BotjZOORFbceLAoEokKw136Ml2 NexxQxv83DQc2QQy/tlIqdaD2EX1gROyIP0aMY9v2poweD9Go7csa43PAFLqOCiz1HAI KANA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YytCZTt0UbK+lMSYvSpfTtSwPMHAatNliFdH63HdQUvUbEvyGDE 3zEF+fw1ffY1gDyMVXnt+e2x6UjPAv5/eayEuSy6Czl447nHSsw4S0luHipY X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGyNHmGvsgwDy947E3qTBE3jH4X7oLo4cfW+ZeSSX5HBS7jAOJOmCfFp30dyMxIyteA5k4u2A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ce8b:b0:1d6:f17e:a03d with SMTP id f11-20020a170902ce8b00b001d6f17ea03dmr4096509plg.95.1706038932878; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 11:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from dw-tp ([49.205.218.89]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e12-20020a17090301cc00b001d753a682e6sm3630397plh.96.2024.01.23.11.42.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 23 Jan 2024 11:42:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 01:12:07 +0530 Message-Id: <87frynkfao.fsf@doe.com> From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) To: Pankaj Raghav , Dave Chinner , "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" Cc: zlang@redhat.com, fstests@vger.kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, gost.dev@samsung.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fstest changes for LBS In-Reply-To: <803025df-5381-494d-9325-dd0a45312b8b@samsung.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Pankaj Raghav writes: >>> CCing Ritesh as I saw him post a patch to fix a testcase for 64k block size. >> >> Hi Pankaj, >> >> So I tested this on Linux 6.6 on Power8 qemu (which I had it handy). >> xfs/558 passed with both 64k blocksize & with 4k blocksize on a 64k >> pagesize system. Ok, so it looks like the testcase xfs/558 is failing on linux-next with 64k blocksize but passing with 4k blocksize. It thought it was passing on my previous linux 6.6 release, but I guess those too were just some lucky runs. Here is the report - linux-next: xfs/558 aggregate results across 11 runs: pass=2 (18.2%), fail=9 (81.8%) v6.6: xfs/558 aggregate results across 11 runs: pass=5 (45.5%), fail=6 (54.5%) So I guess, I will spend sometime analyzing why the failure. Failure log ================ xfs/558 36s ... - output mismatch (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//xfs_64k_iomap/xfs/558.out.bad) --- tests/xfs/558.out 2023-06-29 12:06:13.824276289 +0000 +++ /root/xfstests-dev/results//xfs_64k_iomap/xfs/558.out.bad 2024-01-23 18:54:56.613116520 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ QA output created by 558 +Expected to hear about writeback iomap invalidations? Silence is golden ... (Run 'diff -u /root/xfstests-dev/tests/xfs/558.out /root/xfstests-dev/results//xfs_64k_iomap/xfs/558.out.bad' to see the entire diff) HINT: You _MAY_ be missing kernel fix: 5c665e5b5af6 xfs: remove xfs_map_cow -ritesh > > Thanks for testing it out. I will investigate this further, and see why > I have this failure in LBS for 64k and not for 32k and 16k block sizes. > > As this test also expects some invalidation during the page cache writeback, > this might an issue just with LBS and not for 64k page size machines. > > Probably I will also spend some time to set up a Power8 qemu to test these failures. > >> However, since on this system the quota was v4.05, it does not support >> bigtime feature hence could not run xfs/161. >> >> xfs/161 [not run] quota: bigtime support not detected >> xfs/558 7s ... 21s >> >> I will collect this info on a different system with latest kernel and >> will update for xfs/161 too. >> > > Sounds good! Thanks! > >> -ritesh