On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:20:27PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav wrote: > On 13/03/2024 21:38, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > > From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This test fails for 64k filesystem block size on a 4k PAGE_SIZE > > system. Scale the `blksz` based on the filesystem block size instead of > > fixing it as 64k so that we do get some iomap invalidations while doing > > concurrent writes. > > > > Cap the blksz to be at least 64k to retain the same behaviour as before > > for smaller filesystem blocksizes. > > > > This fixes the "Expected to hear about writeback iomap invalidations?" > > message for 64k filesystems. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Hi Zorro, > I checked xfstests/for-next and didn't see this patch queued up. Do I need > to do something or will it get queued up for the next release? Oh sorry, due to this patch was in a patchset with: [PATCH 2/2] xfs/161: adapt the test case for LBS filesystem So I don't know if you'd like to have them both together, or merge this one (with RVB) at first:) If you hope to have this one at first, I'll merge it in patches-in-queue branch, then have it in next branch. Thanks, Zorro > > > tests/xfs/558 | 7 ++++++- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/558 b/tests/xfs/558 > > index 9e9b3be8..270f458c 100755 > > --- a/tests/xfs/558 > > +++ b/tests/xfs/558 > > @@ -127,7 +127,12 @@ _scratch_mount >> $seqres.full > > $XFS_IO_PROG -c 'chattr -x' $SCRATCH_MNT &> $seqres.full > > _require_pagecache_access $SCRATCH_MNT > > > > -blksz=65536 > > +min_blksz=65536 > > +file_blksz=$(_get_file_block_size "$SCRATCH_MNT") > > +blksz=$(( 8 * $file_blksz )) > > + > > +blksz=$(( blksz > min_blksz ? blksz : min_blksz )) > > + > > _require_congruent_file_oplen $SCRATCH_MNT $blksz > > > > # Make sure we have sufficient extent size to create speculative CoW >
