linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
To: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>, Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
	fstests@vger.kernel.org, Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>,
	tytso@mit.edu, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] common/rc: Add _require_fio_version helper
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 09:29:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <40b11ae3-a2ef-440b-9929-ecf4f8c7cdb9@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250830170907.htlqcmafntjwkjf4@dell-per750-06-vm-08.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com>

On 30/08/2025 18:09, Zorro Lang wrote:
>> I think John has a bit more background but afaict, RWF_ATOMIC support
>> was added (fio commit: d01612f3ae25) but then removed (commit:
>> a25ba6c64fe1) since the feature didn't make it to kernel in time.
>> However the option seemed to be kept in place. Later, commit 40f1fc11d
>> added the support back in a later version of fio.
>>
>> So yes, I think there are some version where fio will accept atomic=1
>> but not act upon it and the tests may start failing with no apparent
>> reason.
> The concern from Darrick might be a problem. May I ask which fio commit
> brought in this issue, and which fio commit fixed it? If this issue be
> brought in and fixed within a fio release, it might be better. But if it
> crosses fio release, that might be bad, then we might be better to have
> this helper.

The history is that fio atomic write support was originally added some 
time ago for out-of-kernel atomic write support, which was O_ATOMIC 
flag. Since O_ATOMIC never made it into the kernel, the feature was 
removed, but the plumbing for atomic writes stayed in fio - specifically 
the "atomic=" option. So I just reused that plumbing in d01612f3ae25 to 
support RWF_ATOMIC.

The point is that we should check the fio version, as different versions 
can give different behaviour for "atomic" option, those being:
a. O_ATOMIC (we definitely don't want this)
b. no nothing (bad)
c. use RWF_ATOMIC

Thanks,
John

  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-09-02  8:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-08-22  8:01 [PATCH v5 00/11] Add more tests for multi fs block atomic writes Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 01/12] common/rc: Add _min() and _max() helpers Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 02/12] common/rc: Add _require_fio_version helper Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-08-25 16:08   ` Zorro Lang
2025-08-27 15:16     ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-08-28 15:09       ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-08-29 16:59         ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-08-30 17:09           ` Zorro Lang
2025-09-01 11:40             ` Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-09-02  5:30               ` Zorro Lang
2025-09-02  8:29             ` John Garry [this message]
2025-09-02 14:50   ` John Garry
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 03/12] common/rc: Add a helper to run fsx on a given file Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 04/12] ltp/fsx.c: Add atomic writes support to fsx Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-09-02 15:06   ` John Garry
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 05/12] generic: Add atomic write test using fio crc check verifier Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-09-02 15:09   ` John Garry
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 06/12] generic: Add atomic write test using fio verify on file mixed mappings Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-09-02 15:10   ` John Garry
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 07/12] generic: Add atomic write multi-fsblock O_[D]SYNC tests Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-09-02 15:14   ` John Garry
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 08/12] generic: Stress fsx with atomic writes enabled Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-09-02 15:18   ` John Garry
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 09/12] generic: Add sudden shutdown tests for multi block atomic writes Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-09-02 15:49   ` John Garry
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 10/12] ext4: test atomic write and ioend codepaths with bigalloc Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-08-28 15:09   ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-09-02 15:52   ` John Garry
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 11/12] ext4: Test atomic writes allocation and write " Ojaswin Mujoo
2025-09-02 15:54   ` John Garry
2025-08-22  8:02 ` [PATCH v5 12/12] ext4: Atomic write test for extent split across leaf nodes Ojaswin Mujoo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=40b11ae3-a2ef-440b-9929-ecf4f8c7cdb9@oracle.com \
    --to=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=zlang@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).