On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:03:23AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2023/8/24 06:27, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 05:18:02PM -0500, Bill O'Donnell wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 09:46:41AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 10:43:50AM -0500, Bill O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > xfs_io pwrite issues a series of block size writes, but there is no guarantee > > > > > that the resulting extent(s) will be singular or contiguous. > > However this doesn't make much difference, at least for btrfs. > > Btrfs would do the merging emitting the fiemap entry, thus even if the > write didn't result a singular extent, as long as they are contiguous > (under most cases they are) the fiemap result would still be a single one. > > > > > > This behavior is > > > > > acceptable, but the test is flawed in that it expects a single extent for a > > > > > pwrite. > > I'm more interested in if you're hitting any test failure? Yes we are. thanks- Bill > > > > > > > > > > > Modify test to accept any layout for the reflinked logical range. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bill O'Donnell <bodonnel@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > tests/generic/352 | 16 +++++++++++----- > > > > > tests/generic/352.out | 2 -- > > > > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/352 b/tests/generic/352 > > > > > index 52ec4850..c4ee8a44 100755 > > > > > --- a/tests/generic/352 > > > > > +++ b/tests/generic/352 > > > > > @@ -48,19 +48,25 @@ _pwrite_byte 0xcdcdcdcd 0 $blocksize $file | _filter_xfs_io > > > > > # use reflink to create the rest of the file, whose all extents are all > > > > > # pointing to the first extent > > > > > for i in $(seq 1 $nr); do > > > > > - _reflink_range $file 0 $file $(($i * $blocksize)) $blocksize > /dev/null > > > > > + _reflink_range $file 0 $file $(($i * $blocksize)) $blocksize > $tmp1.out > > > > > > > > $tmp1 isnt defined anywhere. > > > > > > > > > done > > > > > > > > > > # then call fiemap on that file to test both the shared flag and if > > > > > # reserved extent mapping search will cause soft lockup > > > > > -$XFS_IO_PROG -c "fiemap -v" $file | _filter_fiemap_flags > $tmp.out > > > > > -cat $tmp.out >> $seqres.full > > > > > +$XFS_IO_PROG -c "fiemap -v" $file | _filter_fiemap_flags > $tmp2.out > > > > > +cat $tmp2.out >> $seqres.full > > > > > > > > Nor is $tmp2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # refact the $LOAD_FACTOR to 1 to match the golden output > > > > > sed -i -e "s/$(($last_extent - 1))/$(($orig_last_extent - 1))/" \ > > > > > -e "s/$last_extent/$orig_last_extent/" \ > > > > > - -e "s/$end/$orig_end/" $tmp.out > > > > > -cat $tmp.out > > > > > + -e "s/$end/$orig_end/" $tmp2.out > > > > > + > > > > > +cat $tmp1.out > tmp.1 > > > > > +cat $tmp2.out > tmp.2 > > > > > > > > Not sure why you didn't make the _reflink_range and the fiemap above > > > > output to $tmp.out1 and $tmp.out2, respectively. If you had, then the > > > > default _cleanup would delete $tmp.* automatically... > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > +diff tmp.[12] > > > > > +rm tmp.1 > > > > > +rm tmp.2 > > > > > > > > ...and the rm here wouldn't be necessary. > > > > > > > > Ok. Nitpicking over. Moving on to the weirder design questions of the > > > > original test: > > > > > > > > [add original test author to cc] > > > > > > Emails to quwenruo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx seem to be undeliverable. Maybe Joseph > > > would know what btrfs intent was? > > > > ...or I guess I could have used the current email addr instead of the > > one on the commit. :( > > > > Qu: Question for you: > > Thanks a lot for referring it to me. > > > > > > > I don't know why $blocksize is set to 128k above. If this test needs to > > > > guarantee that there would only be *one* extent (and the golden output > > > > implies this as you note), then it should have been written to say: > > > > > > > > blocksize=$(_get_file_block_size $SCRATCH_MNT) > > > > > > > > But I don't know if the "btrfs soft lock up and return wrong shared > > > > flag" behavior required sharing a (probably multi-block) 128k range, or > > > > if that was simply what the author selected because it reproduced the > > > > problem. > > It's quite sometime ago, thus my memory may not be reliable, but IIRC > the blocksize has no specific requirement other than allowing all > possible blocksize (4K to 64K). > > And at that time, at least I was preferring to use golden output to > detect errors, thus I choose a larger blocksize to allow all blocksizes > to work. > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > --D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # success, all done > > > > > status=0 > > > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/352.out b/tests/generic/352.out > > > > > index 4ff66c21..ad90ae0d 100644 > > > > > --- a/tests/generic/352.out > > > > > +++ b/tests/generic/352.out > > > > > @@ -1,5 +1,3 @@ > > > > > QA output created by 352 > > > > > wrote 131072/131072 bytes at offset 0 > > > > > XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) > > > > > -0: [0..2097151]: shared > > > > > -1: [2097152..2097407]: shared|last > > > > > > > > Also I suspect from the test description that the goal here was to > > > > detect the golden output failing because the shared flag does not get > > > > reported correctly. > > Could explain more on why the shared flag detection is not correct here? > > If a file extent is shared, no matter if it's shared by another inode or > not, shouldn't it be marked with SHARED flag? > > Thanks, > Qu > > > > > > > > > --D > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.41.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
