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 Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B58F8C3DA7F for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:31:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFE63D1EBC for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:31:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (in-7.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D90653D0934 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:30:52 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-7.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7A86200322 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:30:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B703521A56; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:30:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1722454250; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AlGroECRQiNtMmsXbFFmqbsRqftaHI/HvReW+l2elWA=; b=ZPGvaAWJzYp+IvuwrFL8EewYVH8H7xPFLhG9cRT44XVPIueHM+iY/JLs4RmAYyJojt+aeu 1Ec9DAvBvqsXCsi4/407uGHJqKzfpbSJViMU1sBj1yXMpvixzRQsxXHBsYUFhz6c+uoglv BBKj5ECfbsPV3ryS1sdnGZql4Yx51rw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1722454250; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AlGroECRQiNtMmsXbFFmqbsRqftaHI/HvReW+l2elWA=; b=Q3dqaM1NMN7ry2GcmHFBEJW6hq0A94NG+gTfr8AA6+osM5sPKVVirk0WT/O3lWpflEoiQK T/SFou3pvIRFhdBA== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1722454250; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AlGroECRQiNtMmsXbFFmqbsRqftaHI/HvReW+l2elWA=; b=ZPGvaAWJzYp+IvuwrFL8EewYVH8H7xPFLhG9cRT44XVPIueHM+iY/JLs4RmAYyJojt+aeu 1Ec9DAvBvqsXCsi4/407uGHJqKzfpbSJViMU1sBj1yXMpvixzRQsxXHBsYUFhz6c+uoglv BBKj5ECfbsPV3ryS1sdnGZql4Yx51rw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1722454250; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AlGroECRQiNtMmsXbFFmqbsRqftaHI/HvReW+l2elWA=; b=Q3dqaM1NMN7ry2GcmHFBEJW6hq0A94NG+gTfr8AA6+osM5sPKVVirk0WT/O3lWpflEoiQK T/SFou3pvIRFhdBA== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9262313297; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:30:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id v4HmIeqQqmaiSAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:30:50 +0000 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:30:51 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: <20240731193051.GA1428673@pevik> References: <20240731073403.1406035-1-pvorel@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.30 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-7.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/1] cachestat01: Reduce required space on 64kb page size X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > Hi! > > > + num_shift = MIN(tst_device->size*1024*2.6/page_size, 15); > > I guess that we can make it future proof by rounding the 2.6 to 3 just > And that is on the wrong side obviously, so we should do rounding down > to 2 or 2.2 or something along the lines. Yes, 3* would fail. FYI df on good, after last run: 2* => max num_shift < 9 => 1 << 8 (256 pages) /dev/loop0 xfs 241664 20304 221360 9% /var/tmp/LTP_cacSuoazD/mntpoint /dev/loop0 btrfs 307200 22368 207872 10% /var/tmp/LTP_cacSuoazD/mntpoint 2.5* => max num_shift < 11 => 1 << 10 (1024 pages) Highest usage (others have 1% or even 0%): /dev/loop0 xfs 241664 20304 221360 9% /var/tmp/LTP_cacanBaAa/mntpoint /dev/loop0 btrfs 307200 71648 158720 32% /var/tmp/LTP_cacanBaAa/mntpoint 2.6* (or 2.7) => max num_shift < 12 => 1 << 11 (2048 pages) => last OK Highest usage (others have 1% or even 0%): /dev/loop0 xfs 241664 20304 221360 9% /var/tmp/LTP_cacFYiONa/mntpoint /dev/loop0 btrfs 307200 137344 93184 60% /var/tmp/LTP_cacrzr4vk/mntpoint Failures: 2.8* => max num_shift < 13: 1 << 12 (4096 pages) => FAIL on XFS, Btrfs 3* => max num_shift < 14 => 1 << 13 (8192 pages) FAIL on all filesystems Problem is only with Btrfs and XFS. Others have between 0-1% (including Bcachefs). Therefore 2.6* (or 2.7*) is IMHO still secure. If you worry, we can have 2.5* (more secure). Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp