On 6/22/23 12:20, Dave Chinner wrote:
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
THX.
Any preferences for the filesystem size?
I'm currently running off two ramdisks with 512M each; if that's too
small I need to increase the memory of the VM ...
Cheers,
Hannes
