diff mbox series

xfs/558: scale blk IO size based on the filesystem blksz

Message ID 20240313203818.2361119-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series xfs/558: scale blk IO size based on the filesystem blksz | expand

Commit Message

Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) March 13, 2024, 8:38 p.m. UTC
From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>

This test fails for 64k filesystem block size on a 4k PAGE_SIZE
system. Scale the `blksz` based on the filesystem block size instead of
fixing it as 64k so that we do get some iomap invalidations while doing
concurrent writes.

Cap the blksz to be at least 64k to retain the same behaviour as before
for smaller filesystem blocksizes.

This fixes the "Expected to hear about writeback iomap invalidations?"
message for 64k filesystems.

Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
Tested-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
---
 tests/xfs/558 | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) March 26, 2024, 5:20 p.m. UTC | #1
On 13/03/2024 21:38, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
> 
> This test fails for 64k filesystem block size on a 4k PAGE_SIZE
> system. Scale the `blksz` based on the filesystem block size instead of
> fixing it as 64k so that we do get some iomap invalidations while doing
> concurrent writes.
> 
> Cap the blksz to be at least 64k to retain the same behaviour as before
> for smaller filesystem blocksizes.
> 
> This fixes the "Expected to hear about writeback iomap invalidations?"
> message for 64k filesystems.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
> Tested-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> ---

Hi Zorro,
  I checked xfstests/for-next and didn't see this patch queued up. Do I need
to do something or will it get queued up for the next release?

>  tests/xfs/558 | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/558 b/tests/xfs/558
> index 9e9b3be8..270f458c 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/558
> +++ b/tests/xfs/558
> @@ -127,7 +127,12 @@ _scratch_mount >> $seqres.full
>  $XFS_IO_PROG -c 'chattr -x' $SCRATCH_MNT &> $seqres.full
>  _require_pagecache_access $SCRATCH_MNT
>  
> -blksz=65536
> +min_blksz=65536
> +file_blksz=$(_get_file_block_size "$SCRATCH_MNT")
> +blksz=$(( 8 * $file_blksz ))
> +
> +blksz=$(( blksz > min_blksz ? blksz : min_blksz ))
> +
>  _require_congruent_file_oplen $SCRATCH_MNT $blksz
>  
>  # Make sure we have sufficient extent size to create speculative CoW
Zorro Lang March 27, 2024, 1:37 p.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:20:27PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
> On 13/03/2024 21:38, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
> > 
> > This test fails for 64k filesystem block size on a 4k PAGE_SIZE
> > system. Scale the `blksz` based on the filesystem block size instead of
> > fixing it as 64k so that we do get some iomap invalidations while doing
> > concurrent writes.
> > 
> > Cap the blksz to be at least 64k to retain the same behaviour as before
> > for smaller filesystem blocksizes.
> > 
> > This fixes the "Expected to hear about writeback iomap invalidations?"
> > message for 64k filesystems.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
> > Tested-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> > ---
> 
> Hi Zorro,
>   I checked xfstests/for-next and didn't see this patch queued up. Do I need
> to do something or will it get queued up for the next release?

Oh sorry, due to this patch was in a patchset with:

  [PATCH 2/2] xfs/161: adapt the test case for LBS filesystem

So I don't know if you'd like to have them both together, or merge
this one (with RVB) at first:)

If you hope to have this one at first, I'll merge it in patches-in-queue branch,
then have it in next branch.

Thanks,
Zorro

> 
> >  tests/xfs/558 | 7 ++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/xfs/558 b/tests/xfs/558
> > index 9e9b3be8..270f458c 100755
> > --- a/tests/xfs/558
> > +++ b/tests/xfs/558
> > @@ -127,7 +127,12 @@ _scratch_mount >> $seqres.full
> >  $XFS_IO_PROG -c 'chattr -x' $SCRATCH_MNT &> $seqres.full
> >  _require_pagecache_access $SCRATCH_MNT
> >  
> > -blksz=65536
> > +min_blksz=65536
> > +file_blksz=$(_get_file_block_size "$SCRATCH_MNT")
> > +blksz=$(( 8 * $file_blksz ))
> > +
> > +blksz=$(( blksz > min_blksz ? blksz : min_blksz ))
> > +
> >  _require_congruent_file_oplen $SCRATCH_MNT $blksz
> >  
> >  # Make sure we have sufficient extent size to create speculative CoW
>
Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) March 27, 2024, 6:06 p.m. UTC | #3
>>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
>>> Tested-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>
>> Hi Zorro,
>>   I checked xfstests/for-next and didn't see this patch queued up. Do I need
>> to do something or will it get queued up for the next release?
> 
> Oh sorry, due to this patch was in a patchset with:
> 
>   [PATCH 2/2] xfs/161: adapt the test case for LBS filesystem
> 
> So I don't know if you'd like to have them both together, or merge
> this one (with RVB) at first:)
> 

The other patch needs some more discussion I think. Please feel
free to merge this one in as it already has RVB :)

> If you hope to have this one at first, I'll merge it in patches-in-queue branch,
> then have it in next branch.
> 
> Thanks,
> Zorro
> 
>>
>>>  tests/xfs/558 | 7 ++++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/558 b/tests/xfs/558
>>> index 9e9b3be8..270f458c 100755
>>> --- a/tests/xfs/558
>>> +++ b/tests/xfs/558
>>> @@ -127,7 +127,12 @@ _scratch_mount >> $seqres.full
>>>  $XFS_IO_PROG -c 'chattr -x' $SCRATCH_MNT &> $seqres.full
>>>  _require_pagecache_access $SCRATCH_MNT
>>>  
>>> -blksz=65536
>>> +min_blksz=65536
>>> +file_blksz=$(_get_file_block_size "$SCRATCH_MNT")
>>> +blksz=$(( 8 * $file_blksz ))
>>> +
>>> +blksz=$(( blksz > min_blksz ? blksz : min_blksz ))
>>> +
>>>  _require_congruent_file_oplen $SCRATCH_MNT $blksz
>>>  
>>>  # Make sure we have sufficient extent size to create speculative CoW
>>
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tests/xfs/558 b/tests/xfs/558
index 9e9b3be8..270f458c 100755
--- a/tests/xfs/558
+++ b/tests/xfs/558
@@ -127,7 +127,12 @@  _scratch_mount >> $seqres.full
 $XFS_IO_PROG -c 'chattr -x' $SCRATCH_MNT &> $seqres.full
 _require_pagecache_access $SCRATCH_MNT
 
-blksz=65536
+min_blksz=65536
+file_blksz=$(_get_file_block_size "$SCRATCH_MNT")
+blksz=$(( 8 * $file_blksz ))
+
+blksz=$(( blksz > min_blksz ? blksz : min_blksz ))
+
 _require_congruent_file_oplen $SCRATCH_MNT $blksz
 
 # Make sure we have sufficient extent size to create speculative CoW