Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 23/01/2024 01:25, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:17:49PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: >>> From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Some tests need to be adapted to for LBS[1] based on the filesystem >>> blocksize. These are generic changes where it uses the filesystem >>> blocksize instead of assuming it. >>> >>> There are some more generic test cases that are failing due to logdev >>> size requirement that changes with filesystem blocksize. I will address >>> them in a separate series. >>> >>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230915183848.1018717-1-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> Pankaj Raghav (2): >>> xfs/558: scale blk IO size based on the filesystem blksz >>> xfs/161: adapt the test case for LBS filesystem >> >> Do either of these fail and require fixing for a 64k page size >> system running 64kB block size? >> >> i.e. are these actual 64kB block size issues, or just issues with >> the LBS patchset? >> > > I had the same question in mind. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any 64k Page size > machine at the moment. I will ask around if I can get access to it. > > @Zorro I saw you posted a test report for 64k blocksize. Is it possible for you to > see if these test cases(xfs/161, xfs/558) work in your setup with 64k block size? > > CCing Ritesh as I saw him post a patch to fix a testcase for 64k block size. Hi Pankaj, So I tested this on Linux 6.6 on Power8 qemu (which I had it handy). xfs/558 passed with both 64k blocksize & with 4k blocksize on a 64k pagesize system. However, since on this system the quota was v4.05, it does not support bigtime feature hence could not run xfs/161. xfs/161 [not run] quota: bigtime support not detected xfs/558 7s ... 21s I will collect this info on a different system with latest kernel and will update for xfs/161 too. -ritesh
