On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 08:04:32PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 05:38:43PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:04:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 09:14:05AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 05:31:11PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > We've had a fair number of problems reported on 64k block size > > > > > filesystems of late, but none of the XFS developers have Power or > > > > > ARM machines handy to reproduce them or even really test the fixes. > > > > > > > > > > The iomap infrastructure we introduced a while back was designed > > > > > with the capabity of block size > page size support in mind, but we > > > > > hadn't tried to implement it. > > > > > > > > > > So after another 64k block size bug report late last week I said to > > > > > Darrick "How hard could it be"? > > > > > > > > "Nothing is ever simple" :) > > > > > > "It'll only take a couple of minutes!" > > > > > > > > About 6 billion (yes, B) fsx ops later, I have most of the XFS > > > > > functionality working on 64k block sizes on x86_64. Buffered > > > > > read/write, mmap read/write and direct IO read/write all work. All > > > > > the fallocate() operations work correctly, as does truncate. xfsdump > > > > > and xfs_restore are happy with it, as is xfs_repair. xfs-scrub > > > > > needed some help, but I've tested Darrick's fixes for that quite a > > > > > bit over the past few days. > > > > > > > > > > It passes most of xfstests - there's some test failures that I have > > > > > to determine whether they are code bugs or test problems (i.e. some > > > > > tests don't deal with 64k block sizes correctly or assume block size > > > > > <= page size). > > > > > > > > > > What I haven't tested yet is shared extents - the COW path, > > > > > clone_file_range and dedupe_file_range. I discovered earlier today > > > > > that fsx doesn't support copy/clone/dedupe_file_operations > > > > > operations, so before I go any further I need to enxpahnce fsx. Then > > > > > > > > I assume that means you only tested this on reflink=0 filesystems? > > > > > > Correct. > > > > > > > Looking at fsstress, it looks like we don't test copy_file_range either. > > > > I can try adding the missing clone/dedupe/copy to both programs, but > > > > maybe you've already done that while I was asleep? > > > > > > No, I haven't started on this yet. I've been sleeping. :P > > > > I started wondering if we were missing anything from not having fsx > > support clone/dedupe and ended up with: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfstests-dev.git/log/?h=fsstress-clone > > Some fixes to that below. > > I haven't got to testing dedupe or clone - copy_file_range explodes > in under 40 operations in on generic/263. do_splice_direct() looks > to be broken in several different waysat this point. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > fsx: clean up copy/dedupe file range support. > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > copy_file_range() needs to obey read/write constraints otherwise is > blows up when direct IO is used. > > FIDEDUPERANGE has a completely screwed up API for error reporting. > The ioctl succeeds even if dedupe fails, so you have to check > every individual dedupe operations for failure. Without this, dedupe > "succeeds" on kernels filesystems that don't even support dedupe... > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > ltp/fsx.c | 11 ++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/ltp/fsx.c b/ltp/fsx.c > index fad50e0022af..b51910b8b2e1 100644 > --- a/ltp/fsx.c > +++ b/ltp/fsx.c > @@ -1382,7 +1382,11 @@ do_dedupe_range(unsigned offset, unsigned length, unsigned dest) > fdr->info[0].dest_fd = fd; > fdr->info[0].dest_offset = dest; > > - if (ioctl(fd, FIDEDUPERANGE, fdr) == -1) { > + if (ioctl(fd, FIDEDUPERANGE, fdr) == -1 || > + fdr->info[0].status < 0) { > + if (fdr->info[0].status < 0) > + errno = -fdr->info[0].status; > + > if (errno == EOPNOTSUPP || errno == ENOTTY) { > if (!quiet && testcalls > simulatedopcount) > prt("skipping unsupported dedupe range\n"); > @@ -1416,6 +1420,11 @@ do_copy_range(unsigned offset, unsigned length, unsigned dest) > loff_t o1, o2; > ssize_t nr; > > + offset -= offset % readbdy; > + dest -= dest % writebdy; > + if (o_direct) > + length -= length % readbdy; Don't we want byte-granularity copies if we're doing buffered copies? ('Want' is such a strong word, maybe I don't want to find out what other skeletons are lurking in do_splice_direct...) --D > + > if (length == 0) { > if (!quiet && testcalls > simulatedopcount) > prt("skipping zero length copy range\n");
