On 2020/11/24 4:18, Dmitry Fomichev wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> >> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 11:01 PM >> To: Dmitry Fomichev <Dmitry.Fomichev@xxxxxxx>; Jens Axboe >> <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>; fio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Aravind Ramesh >> <Aravind.Ramesh@xxxxxxx>; Naohiro Aota <Naohiro.Aota@xxxxxxx>; >> Niklas Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@xxxxxxx>; Shinichiro Kawasaki >> <shinichiro.kawasaki@xxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] ZBD fixes and improvements >> >> On 11/20/20 6:45 PM, Dmitry Fomichev wrote: >>> This patch series contains bug fixes and refactoring changes >>> related to support for Zoned Block Devices (ZBD) in fio. >>> The highlights: >>> >>> - fix several errors related to running workloads that span >>> a mix of conventional zones and write pointer zones. >>> - improve counting of sectors with data (SWD). >>> - remove dependencies on particular zone types in the code. >>> - add code to gracefully handle offline zones. >> >> Hi Dmitry, >> >> This patch series looks interesting. Out of curiosity, do you perhaps >> know how much of the modified code is covered by the tests in t/zbd? > > Hi Bart, > > All tests in t/zbd are passing with this series in place. This gives us confidence > that the patches don't break anything in terms of the existing functionality. > Most of the bugs that are fixed in this patchset were uncovered by running fio in > environments that go beyond the scope of t/zbd tests, such as ZNS, XMR, some > specific MaxOpen values, etc. and the fixes have been verified in these same > conditions. Having said that, the newer test #48 has become a very handy tool > for identifying zone deadlocks. > > One caveat about the paragraph above - some test script modifications are > needed to fully cover support for offline zones and I have some patches in the > works to add such functionality. I am planning to send these in in the near future. > The current tests do pass in the case of individually injected offline zones on a > drive and this level of testing should suffice for the time being. > > One thing that I thought about while writing this email - maybe we could add > a script to run t/zbd tests on a mixed null_blk with a good amount of conventional > zones? Damien, Shinichiro, do you think that such an addition would improve the > test coverage? Yes, we should add that to run-tests-against-zoned-nullb to avoid future possible regressions with conventional zones. And we should make sure that one test case runs over a range of mixed conv/seq zones. Going further, I think that we should merge run-tests-against-zoned-nullb and run-tests-against-zoned-nullb into a new script run-tests-against-nullb which would test all device configurations: regular nullb, zoned nullb with conventional zones (SMR disk like device), zoned nullb with seq zones only and zone capacity < zone size (ZNS like device). With that, test coverage would be improved to include all recent changes. > > Best regards, > Dmitry > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bart. > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
