From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout05.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout05.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E57A022370D; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 02:49:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.220 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762915768; cv=none; b=AQBvC5wmRe2HkG1Z0etuNiz3qij+wuuxnnWTnDzP2sXhFd93638SIu3MOiYw6KzZYpDlKUaxtAyQgofRXAeUIPtYUwCcHu9UhE3VTAWLJ2yXFVbzcOUz06yiuuduePXisW9G5n7ec3bYLsNWpt5AgsrBLbpZW8w/PD+LbnnEWBs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762915768; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NfccugIYhndvBb+kuG2+eYbKWwIe8Xj4KA5yc2Be1WY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=SvSTevMCdEhMAw9vxqm0kMcKqbCmSKPC5fcCp5YW06lnrM3zETqRxvasj+zy/GUh4ukoEuloYlAszDpi84m5VOHNB5Zu5QbD9Va8Gn2pi/zr4oR5WmSfYsHbkGx8taCGoNOzjtfFGjfHkekiI73a7VI4KeJ8uPnQy6aUWkWvVEk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=M47v9p3D; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.220 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="M47v9p3D" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=oomezv5sc04wZxicbFNiyan/N9zzELOXB6j+qKWz3nI=; b=M47v9p3DYz6SuLAwyRe2U5uCRcQjpCEDcLI6Hnml1M/ZYva8DEIQcZOhkO71mHkqKu9qrnN5g Xcpyrq02GQyhNtc897k60U9pNtZGAhRQ4UsxKvkoiNuwNlfwpq9I1B5oGXeXqov5Rk90o0QLldo AZ8yFehvDstHJSQjMVuMSY0= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.254]) by canpmsgout05.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4d5nrQ1qCrz12LCr; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:47:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf500013.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.188]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB831180495; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:49:21 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.174.178.254) by dggpemf500013.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.188) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:49:20 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:49:19 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/24] ext4: enable block size larger than page size Content-Language: en-GB To: Theodore Ts'o CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , Baokun Li References: <20251107144249.435029-1-libaokun@huaweicloud.com> <20251111235452.GM2988753@mit.edu> From: Baokun Li In-Reply-To: <20251111235452.GM2988753@mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems100002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.206) To dggpemf500013.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.188) On 2025-11-12 07:54, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:42:25PM +0800, libaokun@huaweicloud.com wrote: >> `kvm-xfstests -c ext4/all -g auto` has been executed with no new failures. >> `kvm-xfstests -c ext4/64k -g auto` has been executed and no Oops was >> observed, but allocation failures for large folios may trigger warn_alloc() >> warnings. > I'm seeing some new failures. ext4/4k -g auto is running without any > failures, but when I tried to run ext4/64, I got: > > ext4/64k: 607 tests, 16 failures, 101 skipped, 7277 seconds > Failures: ext4/033 generic/472 generic/493 generic/494 generic/495 > generic/496 generic/497 generic/554 generic/569 generic/620 > generic/636 generic/641 generic/643 generic/759 generic/760 > Flaky: generic/251: 80% (4/5) > Totals: 671 tests, 101 skipped, 79 failures, 0 errors, 6782s > > Some of the test failures may be because I was only using a 5G test > and scratch device, and with a 64k block sze, that might be too small. > But I tried using a 20G test device, and ext3/033 is still failing but > with a different error signature: > > --- tests/ext4/033.out 2025-11-06 22:04:13.000000000 -0500 > +++ /results/ext4/results-64k/ext4/033.out.bad 2025-11-11 17:57:31.149710364 -0500 > @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@ > QA output created by 033 > Figure out block size > Format huge device > +mount: /vdf: fsconfig() failed: Structure needs cleaning. > + dmesg(1) may have more information after failed mount system call. > > > I took a look at the generc/472 and that appears to be a swap on file failure: > > root@kvm-xfstests:~# /vtmp/mke2fs.static -t ext4 -b 65536 -Fq /dev/vdc > Warning: blocksize 65536 not usable on most systems. > /dev/vdc contains a ext4 file system > created on Tue Nov 11 18:02:13 2025 > root@kvm-xfstests:~# mount /dev/vdc /vdc > root@kvm-xfstests:~# fallocate -l 1G /vdc/swap > root@kvm-xfstests:~# mkswap /vdc/swap > mkswap: /vdc/swap: insecure permissions 0644, fix with: chmod 0600 /vdc/swap > Setting up swapspace version 1, size = 1024 MiB (1073737728 bytes) > no label, UUID=a6298248-abf1-42a1-b124-2f6b3be7f597 > root@kvm-xfstests:~# swapon /vdc/swap > swapon: /vdc/swap: insecure permissions 0644, 0600 suggested. > swapon: /vdc/swap: swapon failed: Invalid argument > root@kvm-xfstests:~# I checked the code of the swapon syscall in mm/swapfile.c, and currently the swapfile does not support LBS. Therefore, some failing test cases can be filtered out based on this.          /*           * The swap subsystem needs a major overhaul to support this.           * It doesn't work yet so just disable it for now.           */          if (mapping_min_folio_order(mapping) > 0) {                  error = -EINVAL;                  goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;          } Regards, Baokun > A number of the other tests (generic/493, generic/494, generic/495, > generic/496, generic/497, generic/554) are all swapfile tests. > > I'm not sure why you're not seeing these issues; what version of > xfstests are you using? I recently uploaded a new test appliance[1] > can you try rerunning your tests with the latest test appliance for > kvm-xfstests? > > [1] https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/kvm-xfstests; > > - Ted >