On 22/04/05 06:00PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 04:36:03PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > > > > +# blocksize and fact are used in the last case of the fsync/fdatasync test. > > > > +# This is mainly trying to test recovery operation in case where the data > > > > +# blocks written, exceeds the default flex group size (32768*4096*16) in ext4. > > > > +blocks=32768 > > > > +blocksize=4096 > > > > > > Block size can change based on mkfs parameters. You should extract > > > this dynamically from the filesystem the test is being run on. > > > > > > > Yes, but we still have kept just 4096 because, anything bigger than that like > > 65536 might require a bigger disk size itself to test. The overall size > > requirement of the disk will then become ~36G (32768 * 65536 * 18) > > Hence I went ahead with 4096 which is good enough for testing. > > What if the block size is *smaller*? For example, I run an ext4/1k > configuration (which is how I test block size > page size on x86 VM's :-). For 1k bs, this test can still reproduce the problem. Because the given size will easily overflow the required number of blocks in 1K case. > > > But sure, I will add a comment explaining why we have hardcoded it to 4096 > > so that others don't get confused. Larger than this size disk anyway doesn't get > > tested much right? > > At $WORK we use a 100GB disk by default when running xfstests, and I > wouldn't be surprised if theree are other folks who might use larger > disk sizes. Ohk, sure. Thanks for the info. > > Maybe test to see whether the scratch disk is too small for the given > parameters and if so skip the test using _notrun? > Yes, I think I got the point. I will make the changes accordingly. -ritesh
