On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:01:56PM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Servers) wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fio-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <fio-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
> > Of Alexey Dobriyan
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 10:26 AM
> > To: axboe@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: fio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [PATCH] fio: add for_each_rw_ddir() macro
> >
> > Make it slightly easier to add DDIR_APPEND as fully fledged I/O type.
> > /*
> > * For random IO, allow blockalign offset other than min_bs.
> > */
> > - if (!o->ba[DDIR_READ] || !td_random(td))
> > - o->ba[DDIR_READ] = o->min_bs[DDIR_READ];
> > - if (!o->ba[DDIR_WRITE] || !td_random(td))
> > - o->ba[DDIR_WRITE] = o->min_bs[DDIR_WRITE];
> > - if (!o->ba[DDIR_TRIM] || !td_random(td))
> > - o->ba[DDIR_TRIM] = o->min_bs[DDIR_TRIM];
> > + for_each_rw_ddir(ddir) {
> > + if (!o->ba[ddir] || !td_random(td))
> > + o->ba[ddir] = o->min_bs[ddir];
> > + }
> >
> > if ((o->ba[DDIR_READ] != o->min_bs[DDIR_READ] ||
> > o->ba[DDIR_WRITE] != o->min_bs[DDIR_WRITE] ||
>
> continues as:
> o->ba[DDIR_TRIM] != o->min_bs[DDIR_TRIM]) &&
> !o->norandommap) {
>
> which should be updated too.
Actually it should not. This error message doesn't make sense for Append:
if ((o->ba[DDIR_READ] != o->min_bs[DDIR_READ] ||
o->ba[DDIR_WRITE] != o->min_bs[DDIR_WRITE] ||
o->ba[DDIR_TRIM] != o->min_bs[DDIR_TRIM]) &&
!o->norandommap) {
log_err("fio: Any use of blockalign= turns off randommap\n");
o->norandommap = 1;
ret |= warnings_fatal;
}
ba= should be ignored for Append (maybe with a non-fatal warning message).
> > @@ -765,14 +757,12 @@ static int fixup_options(struct thread_data
> > *td)
> > log_err("fio: rate and rate_iops are mutually
> > exclusive\n");
> > ret |= 1;
> > }
> > - if ((o->rate[DDIR_READ] && (o->rate[DDIR_READ] < o->ratemin[DDIR_READ])) ||
> > - (o->rate[DDIR_WRITE] && (o->rate[DDIR_WRITE] < o->ratemin[DDIR_WRITE])) ||
> > - (o->rate[DDIR_TRIM] && (o->rate[DDIR_TRIM] < o->ratemin[DDIR_TRIM])) ||
> > - (o->rate_iops[DDIR_READ] && (o->rate_iops[DDIR_READ] < o->rate_iops_min[DDIR_READ])) ||
> > - (o->rate_iops[DDIR_WRITE] && (o->rate_iops[DDIR_WRITE] < o->rate_iops_min[DDIR_WRITE])) ||
> > - (o->rate_iops[DDIR_TRIM] && (o->rate_iops[DDIR_TRIM] < o->rate_iops_min[DDIR_TRIM]))) {
> > - log_err("fio: minimum rate exceeds rate\n");
> > - ret |= 1;
> > + for_each_rw_ddir(ddir) {
> > + if ((o->rate[ddir] && (o->rate[ddir] < o->ratemin[ddir])) ||
> > + (o->rate_iops[ddir] && (o->rate_iops[ddir] < o->rate_iops_min[ddir]))) {
> > + log_err("fio: minimum rate exceeds rate\n");
> > + ret |= 1;
> > + }
> > }
>
> That changes the behavior slightly - you can now get up to three of
> those messages. Printing the value of ddir would help identify the
> problem(s) and be more informative than the current single message.
OK.
