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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0BDC48BE8 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:55:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4EF613CB for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:55:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230486AbhFPW5t (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:57:49 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:57265 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229602AbhFPW5s (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:57:48 -0400 Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-72-74-133-215.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [72.74.133.215]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 15GMtW1L022032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:55:32 -0400 Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 08A4E15C3CB8; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:55:31 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Gao Xiang Cc: Trond Myklebust , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "anna.schumaker@netapp.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs: set block size according to pnfs_blksize first Message-ID: References: <1623847469-150122-1-git-send-email-hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com> <4898aa11dc26396c13bbc3d8bf18c13efe4d513a.camel@hammerspace.com> <2c14b63eacf1742bb0bcd2ae02f2d7005f7682d8.camel@hammerspace.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 01:51:04AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > Considering the original XFS regression report [1], I think > underlayfs blksize may still be needed. And binary search to get the > maximum attr value may be another new case for this as well. Or > alternatively just add by block size to do a trip test. > > Although I have no idea if we can just skip the case when testing with > NFS. If getting underlayfs blksize is unfeasible, I think we might > skip such case for now since nfs blksize is not useful for generic/486. > > [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199119 I've looked at the original XFS regression size, and I don't see why using the underlaying blocksize matters at all. This is especially true if you look at the comment in the test, and the commit which fixed the bug. All that is needed for the xfs regression test is to start with a small xattr, and replace it with a large xattr. The blocksize is really irrelevant. - Ted