[LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] zram01: Fix on ppc64le

[Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 February, 2017 10:45:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] zram01: Fix on ppc64le
> 
> Hi!
> > This is ~4 years old comment from Zach Brown, when I hit an issue on ppc,
> > where I could alloc only 1/2 of the volume size:
> > 
> > "That small volume mkfs warning is issued for devices less than a gig.  It
> > indicates that btrfs has gone in to a weird degenerate allocation scheme.
> > We'd only support volumes much larger than that, though I have no quick
> > rule to say how large starts to be reasonable.  Multiple gig, certainly."
> > 
> > I'm running with 384M since then, so far successfully. If we don't allocate
> > too much data on it, we might be OK, but still I'd go with minimum default
> > of 256M.
> 
> What exactly do you have in mind? Using 256MB by default for any Btrfs
> filesystem or fallback to 256MB if mkfs.btrfs output cannot be parsed?

I meant default size.

> 
> I guess that for any other testcase it would be fine enough to bump the
> minimal device size to 256MB unconditionally, but in this case we create
> the data in RAM albeit compressed, and so I would like to keep it as
> small as possible, since otherwise it may fail on embedded hardware.

I didn't have a look at zram01, but can't we detect this and TCONF?
We can try with minimum and see how frequently it changes, I just
wanted to share Zach's quote and my experience with tiny btrfs volumes.

Regards,
Jan

> Maybe we should just remove Btrfs from the zram01.sh test so that we
> don't have to keep bumping the minimal size each time the minimal Btrfs
> size calculation changes...
> 
> --
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis@suse.cz
>