Hi Johannes, I gave my test a retry, and it started failing for all cases. This commit by Boris changed the behavior of reclaim to be less aggressive: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/977bdffbf57cca3ee6541efa1563167d4d282b08.1665701210.git.boris@xxxxxx/ It looks like I need to change the test to cater the current behavior. The current reclaim algorithm is consistent across all sizes, unlike before. I will change the test to do the following: - Write a small file - Write a big file that crosses the reclaim limit - Delete the big file - Check that **only** the block group that contained the small file is reclaimed, and the small file is relocated to a new block group. Let me know if the flow of the test case is correct. On 2022-12-05 17:04, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 05.12.22 15:53, Pankaj Raghav wrote: >> Hi Johannes, >> >>> Btw, what ever happend to this patch? >> >> As I said before, I had trouble reproducing reclaim for 100G drive size, >> and asked if you could reproduce the same on your end. I did not get any >> reply to that. >> >> I wanted to discuss with you what I was seeing during ALPSS, but we never >> got around that! > > Ah right! I'll try to reproduce it on my end as well. > > But even with that one problem it makes the test pass again on my other setups. > > So I think it's still an improvement to the status quo. Can you maybe resend it, > so it's again on Zorro's list? > > Thanks, > Johannes > >
