> -----Original Message----- > From: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@xxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 7:07 PM > To: Dmitry Fomichev <Dmitry.Fomichev@xxxxxxx>; Bart Van Assche > <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>; Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>; > fio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Aravind Ramesh <Aravind.Ramesh@xxxxxxx>; > Naohiro Aota <Naohiro.Aota@xxxxxxx>; Niklas Cassel > <Niklas.Cassel@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@xxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] ZBD fixes and improvements > > 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. I was thinking about adding a meta-script that would invoke the existing two and some new scripts, but we could just merge all of them like you suggested. The entire test would consist of several sections and each of them would run the entire test-zbd-support script against different null_blk configurations. I'll try to come up with something like that... This leaves the question - should such a script be posted separately or be included in this series. IMO, it should be a separate patch(set). > > > > > Best regards, > > Dmitry > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Bart. > > > > > -- > Damien Le Moal > Western Digital Research
