From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24C9C433EF for ; Fri, 27 May 2022 07:07:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1344835AbiE0HHG (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2022 03:07:06 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44006 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1345528AbiE0HHB (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2022 03:07:01 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C3726452 for ; Fri, 27 May 2022 00:06:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id r84so3664358qke.10 for ; Fri, 27 May 2022 00:06:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wDk/LpocLlT2sKmtzNThgAKQcoU6QhAJ8+NtV/qX2fE=; b=McK0q/kZwDDPH9ybu3UGjgHdZlfGArlln6YutzN3vnk1yOuYbEThPfvHVPzUm3GHjI 3wlRFThMOpBhZjxiio7JWA1Bfzte3YFayzXFjNlKaL/0TJXv30xfkSVZuzAo20m7TlyA diEtNfU0Xf2kJspiAf22ziDWC+B8d49k69I/f3TQtG+oUEBNwiIPLBPPLFPbmpztlGAf UtsdSog0MD6jlf1ascn/7uL4I5Trqyv9MTpysU35ILReu0Qh+2bZ8AaD484cSnmQuglM 4WMeA+fxF56Q7t/kdjjCWgSaNO2KHvK7kunz3HgHMSb0ffEuvqM3I+Y+rs1vquJ6OkMC EztQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wDk/LpocLlT2sKmtzNThgAKQcoU6QhAJ8+NtV/qX2fE=; b=LA2XbH5PfAlu6gvvVR3Ppwt9sE372nK3VZMh7YMVVwAhp14jmOllt9eMKCbe+bB7HH 23Zorcy9TudD8j8FcdoLPgJvm10n5bWNZZBbqwuccjTmIdwUzJHMAZCXi7zwnRbg0yCA 4ti2r/+T+mhemobWehxq9ZzMdfZrDZ86Mx1egvHGjVEME/c8yBYruZTaLoUInm1BI496 5ujcu2iz8iA+u5f+ZH6l2tGjPNPJQ5w0bIUP9poOC+AcL3cwxuS5Aj3LRJNf1V2tFjcP 5+Un5zTkYYZ9Gpt5MhfP9Zku5sKL12Nj03/kkEO8OakNe/IBARtpbW6nXgowCIrYrTvC QnYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533xZEqwsR3E7GL8ihpuoIzTVXGO0ix+WIjiU0Ym9+yG4bR/7JO0 6eb7gkEWTTrnG2/8QTEI01jBRIsXK1CbQ08njjE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxVB8syEBneXZfgPPelRKFNPtoa3UFpVcdFQLgPqDp1R5Kgvxmx1pzZKmIUNplDuLC94uQO1NcaMQFjSnSQsgU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2728:b0:6a5:dac2:2311 with SMTP id b40-20020a05620a272800b006a5dac22311mr957208qkp.722.1653635218196; Fri, 27 May 2022 00:06:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210222153442.897089-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20210222182745.GA7272@magnolia> <20210223123106.GB946926@bfoster> In-Reply-To: From: Amir Goldstein Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 10:06:46 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: don't reuse busy extents on extent trim To: Brian Foster Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Zorro Lang Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:56 PM Amir Goldstein 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.