From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2] Use real FS block size in fallocate05
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:02:38 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1253407522.17207718.1576616558113.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191217131703.16935-1-mdoucha@suse.cz>
----- Original Message -----
> fallocate() behavior depends on whether the file range is aligned to full
> blocks. Make sure that the test always uses aligned file range so that
> the test is consistent across platforms.
>
> Also use the TEST() macro to prevent errno pollution and increase test device
> size to avoid weird edge cases that don't happen in the real world.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
> ---
>
> Using fixed-size buffer in fallocate05 caused some failures in the past
> due to allocation requests being misaligned with actual file system blocks.
> Btrfs in particular will treat misaligned allocation as regular write()
> and apply copy-on-write to partially allocated blocks even on the first real
> write().
>
> While that behavior is somewhat surprising, it does make sense. Fix the error
> by using multiples of real block size in fallocate() and write().
>
> I'll also write another fallocate() test later for checking FS behavior
> on intentionally misaligned allocation. But this fix can be committed before
> that.
>
> Changes since v1:
> - XFS keeps some free blocks even when write() failed with ENOSPC. Repeat
> fallocate() until it gets ENOSPC, too.
> - Deallocate only part of the file. Btrfs will fail this check because it has
> a bug.
> - Add description of test scenario in the header comment.
> - Increase test device size to 1GB to avoid unrealistic Btrfs edge cases.
>
Looks good to me.
Is there an upstream thread link for that btrfs bug?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-17 21:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-28 9:36 [LTP] [PATCH 0/1] Use real FS block size in fallocate05 Martin Doucha
2019-11-28 9:36 ` [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] " Martin Doucha
2019-11-28 17:47 ` Petr Vorel
2019-11-29 9:54 ` Martin Doucha
2019-11-29 12:01 ` Jan Stancek
2019-11-29 15:25 ` Martin Doucha
2019-11-29 16:17 ` Jan Stancek
2019-12-04 10:38 ` Martin Doucha
2019-12-13 13:40 ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-12-17 13:17 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2] " Martin Doucha
2019-12-17 21:02 ` Jan Stancek [this message]
2019-12-18 9:09 ` Martin Doucha
2019-12-18 10:01 ` Martin Doucha
2019-12-18 10:07 ` Jan Stancek
2019-12-18 13:15 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3] " Martin Doucha
2020-01-02 10:01 ` Jan Stancek
2020-01-07 15:21 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-01-07 15:50 ` Martin Doucha
2020-01-13 12:16 ` Martin Doucha
2020-01-13 13:16 ` Qu WenRuo
2020-01-13 13:25 ` Martin Doucha
2020-01-13 13:30 ` Qu WenRuo
2020-01-07 16:09 ` Martin Doucha
2020-01-07 16:29 ` Cyril Hrubis
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=1253407522.17207718.1576616558113.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com \
--to=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/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