Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] fstests: add tests for btrfs' raid-stripe-tree feature

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]





On 12/7/23 17:41, Filipe Manana wrote:
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 9:03 AM Johannes Thumshirn
<johannes.thumshirn@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Add tests for btrfs' raid-stripe-tree feature. All of these test work by
writing a specific pattern to a newly created filesystem and afterwards
using `btrfs inspect-internal -t raid-stripe $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL` to verify
the placement and the layout of the metadata.

The md5sum of each file will be compared as well after a re-mount of the
filesystem.

---
Changes in v5:
- add _require_btrfs_free_space_tree helper and use in tests
- Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231206-btrfs-raid-v4-0-578284dd3a70@xxxxxxx

Changes in v4:
- add _require_btrfs_no_compress to all tests
- add _require_btrfs_no_nodatacow helper and add to btrfs/308
- add _require_btrfs_feature "free_space_tree" to all tests
- Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231205-btrfs-raid-v3-0-0e857a5439a2@xxxxxxx

Changes in v3:
- added 'raid-stripe-tree' to mkfs options, as only zoned raid gets it
   automatically
- Rename test cases as btrfs/302 and btrfs/303 already exist upstream
- Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231205-btrfs-raid-v2-0-25f80eea345b@xxxxxxx

Changes in v2:
- Re-ordered series so the newly introduced group is added before the
   tests
- Changes Filipe requested to the tests.
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231204-btrfs-raid-v1-0-b254eb1bcff8@xxxxxxx

---
Johannes Thumshirn (9):
       fstests: doc: add new raid-stripe-tree group
       common: add filter for btrfs raid-stripe dump
       common: add _require_btrfs_no_nodatacow helper
       common: add _require_btrfs_free_space_tree
       btrfs: add fstest for stripe-tree metadata with 4k write
       btrfs: add fstest for 8k write spanning two stripes on raid-stripe-tree
       btrfs: add fstest for writing to a file at an offset with RST
       btrfs: add fstests to write 128k to a RST filesystem
       btrfs: add fstest for overwriting a file partially with RST

  common/btrfs        |  17 +++++++++
  common/filter.btrfs |  14 +++++++
  doc/group-names.txt |   1 +
  tests/btrfs/304     |  56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  tests/btrfs/304.out |  58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  tests/btrfs/305     |  61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  tests/btrfs/305.out |  82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  tests/btrfs/306     |  59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  tests/btrfs/306.out |  75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  tests/btrfs/307     |  56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  tests/btrfs/307.out |  65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  tests/btrfs/308     |  60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  tests/btrfs/308.out | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  13 files changed, 710 insertions(+)
---
base-commit: baca8a2b5cb6e798ce3a07e79a081031370c6cb8

Btw this base commit does not exist in the official fstests repo.
That commit is from the staging branch at https://github.com/kdave/xfstests

A "git am" will fail because the official fstests repo doesn't have
_require_btrfs_no_block_group_tree() at common/btrfs,
so it needs to be manually adjusted when applying the 3rd patch.

I tried the tests and they look good, so:

Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>

One question I missed before. Test 304 for example does a 4K write and
expects in the golden output to get a 4K raid stripe item.
What happens on a machine with 64K page size? There the default sector
size is 64K, will the write result in a 64K raid stripe item or will
it be 4K? In the former case, it will make the test fail.


Testing on a 64K pagesize. Will run it. Apologies for intermittent responses; OOO until December 21.

Thanks Anand


Thanks.


change-id: 20231204-btrfs-raid-75975797f97d

Best regards,
--
Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@xxxxxxx>






[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux