| Message ID | 20200205224818.18707-1-jmoyer@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | fstests: fixes for 64k pages and dax | expand |
[cc fstests@vger.kernel.org] On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 05:48:15PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > This set of patches fixes a few false positives I encountered when > testing DAX on ppc64le (which has a 64k page size). > > Patch 1 is actually not specific to non-4k page sizes. Right now we > only test for dax incompatibility in the dm flakey target. This means > that tests that use dm-thin or the snapshot target will still try to > run. Moving the check to _require_dm_target fixes that problem. > > Patches 2 and 3 get rid of hard coded block/page sizes in the tests. > They run just fine on 64k pages and 64k block sizes. > > Even after these patches, there are many more tests that fail in the > following configuration: > > MKFS_OPTIONS="-b size=65536 -m reflink=0" MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o dax" > > One class of failures is tests that create a really small file system > size. Some of those tests seem to require the very small size, but > others seem like they could live with a slightly bigger size that > would then fit the log (the typical failure is a mkfs failure due to > not enough blocks for the log). For the former case, I'm tempted to > send patches to _notrun those tests, and for the latter, I'd like to > bump the file system sizes up. 300MB seems to be large enough to > accommodate the log. Would folks be opposed to those approaches? > > Another class of failure is tests that either hard-code a block size > to trigger a specific error case, or that test a multitude of block > sizes. I'd like to send a patch to _notrun those tests if there is > a user-specified block size. That will require parsing the MKFS_OPTIONS > based on the fs type, of course. Is that something that seems > reasonable? > > I will follow up with a series of patches to implement those changes > if there is consensus on the approach. These first three seemed > straight-forward to me, so that's where I'm starting. > > Thanks! > Jeff > > [PATCH 1/3] dax/dm: disable testing on devices that don't support dax > [PATCH 2/3] t_mmap_collision: fix hard-coded page size > [PATCH 3/3] xfs/300: modify test to work on any fs block size Hi Jeff, You probably should be sending fstests patches to fstests@vger.kernel.org, otherwise they probably won't get noticed by the fstests maintainer... Cheers, Dave.
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> writes: > [cc fstests@vger.kernel.org] > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 05:48:15PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> This set of patches fixes a few false positives I encountered when >> testing DAX on ppc64le (which has a 64k page size). >> >> Patch 1 is actually not specific to non-4k page sizes. Right now we >> only test for dax incompatibility in the dm flakey target. This means >> that tests that use dm-thin or the snapshot target will still try to >> run. Moving the check to _require_dm_target fixes that problem. >> >> Patches 2 and 3 get rid of hard coded block/page sizes in the tests. >> They run just fine on 64k pages and 64k block sizes. >> >> Even after these patches, there are many more tests that fail in the >> following configuration: >> >> MKFS_OPTIONS="-b size=65536 -m reflink=0" MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o dax" >> >> One class of failures is tests that create a really small file system >> size. Some of those tests seem to require the very small size, but >> others seem like they could live with a slightly bigger size that >> would then fit the log (the typical failure is a mkfs failure due to >> not enough blocks for the log). For the former case, I'm tempted to >> send patches to _notrun those tests, and for the latter, I'd like to >> bump the file system sizes up. 300MB seems to be large enough to >> accommodate the log. Would folks be opposed to those approaches? >> >> Another class of failure is tests that either hard-code a block size >> to trigger a specific error case, or that test a multitude of block >> sizes. I'd like to send a patch to _notrun those tests if there is >> a user-specified block size. That will require parsing the MKFS_OPTIONS >> based on the fs type, of course. Is that something that seems >> reasonable? >> >> I will follow up with a series of patches to implement those changes >> if there is consensus on the approach. These first three seemed >> straight-forward to me, so that's where I'm starting. >> >> Thanks! >> Jeff >> >> [PATCH 1/3] dax/dm: disable testing on devices that don't support dax >> [PATCH 2/3] t_mmap_collision: fix hard-coded page size >> [PATCH 3/3] xfs/300: modify test to work on any fs block size > > Hi Jeff, > > You probably should be sending fstests patches to > fstests@vger.kernel.org, otherwise they probably won't get noticed > by the fstests maintainer... Hm, somehow I didn't know about that list. I'll send v2 there, thanks! -Jeff