On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 10:30:33AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > On 21/08/02 12:00AM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:57:58AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > > > This test fails with blocksize 64k since the test assumes 4k blocksize > > > in fcollapse param. This patch fixes that and also tests for 64k > > > blocksize. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > tests/generic/031 | 14 +++++++++----- > > > tests/generic/031.out | 16 ++++++++-------- > > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/031 b/tests/generic/031 > > > index 313ce9ff..11961c54 100755 > > > --- a/tests/generic/031 > > > +++ b/tests/generic/031 > > > @@ -26,11 +26,16 @@ testfile=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile > > > _scratch_mkfs > /dev/null 2>&1 > > > _scratch_mount > > > > > > +# fcollapse need offset and len to be multiple of blocksize for filesystems > > > +# So let's make the offsets and len required for fcollapse multiples of 64K > > > +# so that it works for all configurations (including on dax on 64K page size > > > +# systems) > > > +fact=$((65536/4096)) > > > $XFS_IO_PROG -f \ > > > - -c "pwrite 185332 55756" \ > > > - -c "fcollapse 28672 40960" \ > > > - -c "pwrite 133228 63394" \ > > > - -c "fcollapse 0 4096" \ > > > + -c "pwrite $((185332*fact + 12)) $((55756*fact + 12))" \ > > > > Where does this 12 come from? > A random number so that the offset and length are not bocksize aligned. > If you see the final .out file, you will see the offset of the writes > remains the same with and before this patch. > > > And I'm wondering if this still reproduces the original bug. > I am not sure how to trigger this. I know that this test was intended for > bs < ps cases. If someone can help me / point me to the kernel fix for this, > I can try to reproduce the original bug too. > > I found this link for this test patch series. Couldn't find the kernel fixes > link though. > https://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg00340.html I think it's a regression test for this patchset. https://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg29807.html > > > > > > And looks like that the original test setups came from a specific > > fsstress or fsx run, and aimed to the specific bug, perhaps we could > > require the test with <= 4k block size, and _notrun in 64k case. > > It would be good to know whether this code could trigger the original bug or > not. Then we need not make _notrun for 64k case. Agreed, if we could make sure that updated test still triggers the original bug, there's no reason _notrun for 64k case. Thanks, Eryu
