Hi Dave,
As I mentioned earlier some tests are skipped with reason(O_DIRECT is
not supported) with netfs changes. This is because "ctx->len" is
getting updated to 0 in the code below for the DIRECT IO case.
Snippet from cifs_writev:
rc = extract_iter_to_iter(from, ctx->len, &ctx->iter, &ctx->bv);
if (rc < 0) {
kref_put(&ctx->refcount, cifs_aio_ctx_release);
return rc;
}
ctx->npages = rc;
ctx->len = iov_iter_count(&ctx->iter);
lxsmbadmin@netfsvm:~/xfstests-dev$ sudo ./check generic/091
SECTION -- smb3
FSTYP -- cifs
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 netfsvm 5.17.0-rc6+ #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri
Mar 18 05:55:29 UTC 2022
MKFS_OPTIONS -- //127.0.0.1/sambashare_scratch
MOUNT_OPTIONS --
-ousername=lxsmbadmin,password=RedBagBesideALake!,noperm,vers=3.0,actimeo=0
//127.0.0.1/sambashare_scratch /mnt/xfstests_scratch
generic/091 [not run] O_DIRECT is not supported
Ran: generic/091
Not run: generic/091
Passed all 1 tests
SECTION -- smb3
=========================
Ran: generic/091
Not run: generic/091
Passed all 1 tests
Regards,
Rohith
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 8:22 AM Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 7:21 PM David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rohith, Steve,
> >
> > I've updated my cifs-experimental branch. What I have there seems to work
> > much the same as without the patches.
> >
> > I've managed to run some xfstests on it. I note that various xfstests fail,
> > even without my patches, and some of them seem quite slow, again even without
> > my patches.
> >
> > Note that I'm comparing the speed to afs which does a lot of directory
> > management locally compared to other network filesystems, so I might be
> > comparing apples and oranges. For example, I can run generic/013 on afs in
> > 4-7s, whereas it's 3m-7m on cifs. However, since /013 does a bunch of
> > directory ops, afs probably has an advantage by caching the entire dir
> > contents locally, thereby satisfying lookup and readdir from local cache and
> > using a bulk status fetch to stat files from a dir in batches of 50 or so.
> > This is probably worth further investigation at some point.
>
> Yes - this is a point that Nagendra also made recently that we could
> benefit from
> some of the tricks that NFS uses for caching directory contents not just the
> stat and revalidate_dentry info (e.g. affected by actimeo).
>
> Since the protocol supports directory leases it would be relatively
> safe compared
> to some other protocols to cache directory contents much more aggressively,
> and even without directory leases, other tricks (like directory change
> notification
> or even simply the mtime on the directory) can be used to cache directory
> contents reasonably safely.
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
