On 23/01/2024 20:42, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: > Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>> 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. > > Ok, so it looks like the testcase xfs/558 is failing on linux-next with > 64k blocksize but passing with 4k blocksize. > It thought it was passing on my previous linux 6.6 release, but I guess > those too were just some lucky runs. Here is the report - > > linux-next: xfs/558 aggregate results across 11 runs: pass=2 (18.2%), fail=9 (81.8%) > v6.6: xfs/558 aggregate results across 11 runs: pass=5 (45.5%), fail=6 (54.5%) > Oh, thanks for reporting back! I can confirm that it happens 100% of time with my LBS patch enabled for 64k bs. Let's see what Zorro reports back on a real 64k hardware. > So I guess, I will spend sometime analyzing why the failure. > Could you try the patch I sent for xfs/558 and see if it works all the time? The issue is 'xfs_wb*iomap_invalid' not getting triggered when we have larger bs. I basically increased the blksz in the test based on the underlying bs. Maybe there is a better solution than what I proposed, but it fixes the test. > Failure log > ================ > xfs/558 36s ... - output mismatch (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//xfs_64k_iomap/xfs/558.out.bad) > --- tests/xfs/558.out 2023-06-29 12:06:13.824276289 +0000 > +++ /root/xfstests-dev/results//xfs_64k_iomap/xfs/558.out.bad 2024-01-23 18:54:56.613116520 +0000 > @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ > QA output created by 558 > +Expected to hear about writeback iomap invalidations? > Silence is golden > ... > (Run 'diff -u /root/xfstests-dev/tests/xfs/558.out /root/xfstests-dev/results//xfs_64k_iomap/xfs/558.out.bad' to see the entire diff) > > HINT: You _MAY_ be missing kernel fix: > 5c665e5b5af6 xfs: remove xfs_map_cow > > -ritesh > >> >> Thanks for testing it out. I will investigate this further, and see why >> I have this failure in LBS for 64k and not for 32k and 16k block sizes. >> >> As this test also expects some invalidation during the page cache writeback, >> this might an issue just with LBS and not for 64k page size machines. >> >> Probably I will also spend some time to set up a Power8 qemu to test these failures. >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Sounds good! Thanks! >> >>> -ritesh
