On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 08:50:06AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 6/22/23 07:51, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > On 6/22/23 00:07, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 11:00:24AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > > > On 6/21/23 10:38, Pankaj Raghav wrote: > > > > Hmm. Most unfortunate; I've just finished my own patchset > > > > (duplicating much > > > > of this work) to get 'brd' running with large folios. > > > > And it even works this time, 'fsx' from the xfstest suite runs > > > > happily on > > > > that. > > > > > > So you've converted a filesystem to use bs > ps, too? Or is the > > > filesystem that fsx is running on just using normal 4kB block size? > > > If the latter, then fsx is not actually testing the large folio page > > > cache support, it's mostly just doing 4kB aligned IO to brd.... > > > > > I have been running fsx on an xfs with bs=16k, and it worked like a charm. > > I'll try to run the xfstest suite once I'm finished with merging > > Pankajs patches into my patchset. > > Well, would've been too easy. > 'fsx' bails out at test 27 (collapse), with: > > XFS (ram0): Corruption detected. Unmount and run xfs_repair > XFS (ram0): Internal error isnullstartblock(got.br_startblock) at line 5787 > of file fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c. Caller > xfs_bmap_collapse_extents+0x2d9/0x320 [xfs] > > Guess some more work needs to be done here. Yup, start by trying to get the fstests that run fsx through cleanly first. That'll get you through the first 100,000 or so test ops in a few different run configs. Those canned tests are: tests/generic/075 tests/generic/112 tests/generic/127 tests/generic/231 tests/generic/455 tests/generic/457 Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
