From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f177.google.com (mail-pg1-f177.google.com [209.85.215.177]) (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 5C17E629E5; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 15:40:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.177 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706024405; cv=none; b=lpfWfGykgn4xyx7HmBDsgIbcviij96cYV/BQoy2KNlg+sAyX9YTWoD+r5byVKr1AlPdmKEKDm3jfAGycBfX6+yBUfxS+q14djhzU2LXJPHmfHUf+Fr5eSOB1RsoqPvevhEd5GJgQf7PptLqb8tmkr8JYvWlXeGocT+QFnVUrHNY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706024405; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cSv5kpizfXuvWKtM1iXvaKotp+mhbL+Nyhew9JA5j6U=; h=Date:Message-Id:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To; b=mUe7r0rZxE+RR23dh2sxQeRk9krOeLKoydbrFpM9ZlJlPA99G4/qSY7GBxj6maIuoqzrHQ/xdEYuW4KdTgm9h/PvG6ezFSmP0BteI2HozbnN1Ul7NgzVyPDOaKuDguiExY3rh8yDQgr7XuoZ8grt1vwlS/krXC9HBs+nNTh6brg= 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=cDscQt2Y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.177 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="cDscQt2Y" Received: by mail-pg1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-53fa455cd94so2160437a12.2; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:40:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1706024403; x=1706629203; 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=ZEUQdRI8Gd/0gbLGZyLX0bHbCBzzLj0tCPidR6gQAKs=; b=cDscQt2Y04sbTEUdPe26f6jxEF0UZI5UGCJd98X1lVHaAEzmGRVxXLEcGg7ZnxD6vc dNxE7tJ2J83HwbSIxii0uM2Oi6QKlQrEeYYIGOs1BBfAAtpPLvlZQEq356hjsL7C4qYI HoyTi26hI8wRPD5zHy46PJy15Z/+uDDsv7GctoHNBsKC2h9ysjx3Ozg4vQqksGE/pxS6 kYDLgi+86aV8nWnMfYA8CRK8sISlkYE8mHjjxEMjzn/dzNILCL9mdGxp2uvyjofSD4ob YFpNBxrwVXfl3t3TRlRO/pXo9tbdZ3OCMmlzuCNlKtoriF+xKANoPOF2RHm3PTz32//0 1s4g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706024403; x=1706629203; 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=ZEUQdRI8Gd/0gbLGZyLX0bHbCBzzLj0tCPidR6gQAKs=; b=Qv+ugcm6DFEGG86WNd2ZJ6UdIY+zRSZaHsyUVCcmKBSk1sDXaLFqswcHoSbuvgQNTx iDEIC//jj4t9lll8Ns+lFgLUkuHzl2IXmkuffslQWZrDoNe1tlytjghEjXVt9ibLt20e 8wNanZ3ioMevi+adPQ631WBt5SzY8gdl6S+F3BtT4+FrQlumV6EkkvAU/VCEklTf2tNZ 3RZCvl8XvaZIKI9GM1TN6tYswAHSw83CVwKn91NZveFELRcgHFTU14B81OA6CoZECdth yy8rGv/Z3D2aBuyeFYYeJJY9tXU87nnDODOHnXn7l/PmXPyD8L6WUEmtJxn2EBkm7mk0 nNmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YydN6NuiX8F2/fn8Fe5Dql4M1zXJ0wL5QngZBJvffIQqqQK6wJR N/8kGSgtCoh2pdfU1PLF31eJeKs4Kv9TSU9HauxQua8o61yJvkBXlMJLBlU6 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGCV4H7DLGiuA7H1eY5mBBg6lm4Ys3Or4xgrb6CUsUiFupgi50J0lwgoiSIotg/H+c4p4RB7A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:815:b0:28d:baad:aa41 with SMTP id bk21-20020a17090b081500b0028dbaadaa41mr2765736pjb.18.1706024402695; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:40:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from dw-tp ([49.205.218.89]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cz4-20020a17090ad44400b0028c8a2a9c73sm11912941pjb.25.2024.01.23.07.39.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:40:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 21:09:57 +0530 Message-Id: <87il3kjbxu.fsf@doe.com> From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) To: Zorro Lang , Pankaj Raghav Cc: Dave Chinner , "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" , 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: <20240123134310.6mrzqdvs64ka6o6p@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Zorro Lang writes: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 09:52:39AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav wrote: >> On 23/01/2024 01:25, Dave Chinner wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:17:49PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: >> >> From: Pankaj Raghav >> >> >> >> Some tests need to be adapted to for LBS[1] based on the filesystem >> >> blocksize. These are generic changes where it uses the filesystem >> >> blocksize instead of assuming it. >> >> >> >> There are some more generic test cases that are failing due to logdev >> >> size requirement that changes with filesystem blocksize. I will address >> >> them in a separate series. >> >> >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230915183848.1018717-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com/ >> >> >> >> Pankaj Raghav (2): >> >> xfs/558: scale blk IO size based on the filesystem blksz >> >> xfs/161: adapt the test case for LBS filesystem >> > >> > Do either of these fail and require fixing for a 64k page size >> > system running 64kB block size? >> > >> > i.e. are these actual 64kB block size issues, or just issues with >> > the LBS patchset? >> > >> >> I had the same question in mind. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any 64k Page size >> machine at the moment. I will ask around if I can get access to it. >> >> @Zorro I saw you posted a test report for 64k blocksize. Is it possible for you to >> see if these test cases(xfs/161, xfs/558) work in your setup with 64k block size? > > Sure, I'll reserve one ppc64le and give it a try. But I remember there're more failed > cases on 64k blocksize xfs. > Please share the lists of failed testcases with 64k bs xfs (if you have it handy). IIRC, many of them could be due to 64k bs itself, but yes, I can take a look and work on those. Thanks! -ritesh