Re: [PATCH] xfs: don't reuse busy extents on extent trim

[Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>]

On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:56 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I tested it on top of 5.10.109 + these 5 patches:
> > > https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/xfs-5.10.y-1
> > >
> > > I can test it in isolation if you like. Let me know if there are
> > > other forensics that you would like me to collect.
> > >
> >
> > Hm. Still no luck if I move to .109 and pull in those few patches. I
> > assume there's nothing else potentially interesting about the test env
> > other than the sparse file scratch dev (i.e., default mkfs options,
>
> Oh! right, this guest is debian/10 with xfsprogs 4.20, so the defaults
> are reflink=0.
>
> Actually, the section I am running is reflink_normapbt, but...
>
> ** mkfs failed with extra mkfs options added to "-f -m
> reflink=1,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=1," by test 076 **
> ** attempting to mkfs using only test 076 options: -m crc=1 -i sparse **
> ** mkfs failed with extra mkfs options added to "-f -m
> reflink=1,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=1," by test 076 **
> ** attempting to mkfs using only test 076 options: -d size=50m -m
> crc=1 -i sparse **
>
> mkfs.xfs does not accept double sparse argument, so the
> test falls back to mkfs defaults (+ sparse)
>
> I checked and xfsprogs 5.3 behaves the same, I did not check newer
> xfsprogs, but that seems like a test bug(?)
>

xfsprogs 5.16 still behaves the same, meaning that xfs/076 and many many
other tests ignore the custom mkfs options for the specific sections.
That is a big test coverage issue!

> IWO, unless xfsprogs was changed to be more tolerable to repeating
> arguments, then maybe nobody is testing xfs/076 with reflink=0 (?)
>

Bingo!
Test passes 100 runs with debian/testing - xfsprogs v5.16

I shall try to amend the test to force reflink=0 to see what happens.
You should try it as well.

Thanks,
Amir.