On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 09:29:10AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:41:50AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:18:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > > When test on large SCRATCH_DEV, grow a small XFS to huge size is a > > > > horrible thing (e.g grow 128m to 500T). So add a helper named > > > > _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() to do below things: > > > > > > > > 1) If --large-fs is used, limit growfs size. > > > > 2) If a limit size parameter is specified, make sure growfs won't > > > > beyond this size. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > I think I originally just didn't run growfs tests like this on large > > > filesystems. i.e. require_no_largefs.... > > > > Hmm... Sorry, am I facing different review-points from 3 different XFS maintainers? ... > > I'm not a maintainer, I'm just the guy who added this functionality > to xfstests originally. Deciding what is to be done needs to start > from an understanding of the criteria I used for skipping tests on > large devices. In this case, I never intended to have multiple > order magnitude growfs tests run on large scratch devices. > > When I added large device support, I tried to avoid tests that we > already had substantial coverage for. i.e. if inreasing the space > used by the test doesn't increase test coverage but only increased > test runtime, then I skipped it. In this case, we already test > small to large size growfs via loopback devices on small scratch > devices (e.g. xfs/078), so doing it on extremely large scratch > devices doesn't reallycover any new code or error conditions. > > Hence, based on my original criteria for deciding what tests to run > on large filesystems, I would have skipped this test if it caused > excessive runtime. I was testing on sparse devices on SSDs, so seek > times for growfs did not impact performance, hence I probably didn't > skip it... > > > Dave: require_no_largefs is better. > > Darrick: nearly ack this patch. > > Eric: > > 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> [15:01] <zoro> [00:55:47] I think maybe use _require_no_large_scratch_dev for xfs/002 will be better. Grow a 128M XFS to large size is 'horrible' > > 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> just limit growfs to something smaller. > > > > What should I do next? > > Make your own decision about how best to proceed based on the > feedback you've received. Or ask the fstests maintainer to decide > what is best.... :P No, don'... :) jk Yes, it's worth asking Eryu. I'm ok with either resolution (_require_no_large_scratch_dev or just constrict it to 10x growfs). --D > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
