On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 10:02:41PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 05:13:56PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > +_require_compaction() > > I'm not sure if we should name it as "_require_vm_compaction", does linux > have other "compaction" or only memory compaction? I'll color bike shed with "memory compaction" although I am not aware of other compaction types. However making it clear helps. > > +++ b/tests/generic/744 > > @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ > > +#! /bin/bash > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +# Copyright (c) 2024 Luis Chamberlain. All Rights Reserved. > > +# > > +# FS QA Test 744 > > +# > > +# fsstress + compaction test > > fsstress + memory compaction ? Sure. > Looks like this case is copied from g/476, just add memory_compaction > test. That makes sense to me from the test side. It's a generic fsstress + compaction, right. > you just found. Looks like you're reporting a bug, and provide a test > case to fstests@ by the way. This case is hard to reproduce, and so instead of waiting for compaction to trigger we force it now. > Anyway, I think there's not objection on > this test itself, right? And is this test for someone known bug or not? This reproduces a known kernel bug for which we have a fix now merged, at the time this test was written it was not even merged on v6.9-rc4. The fix was merged on v6.9-rc6. I can now add this to the test: _fixed_by_git_commit kernel d99e3140a4d3 \ "mm: turn folio_test_hugetlb into a PageType" However I also ran into some *other* issues even after that patch was applied. Now that v6.10-rc1 is out I will retest to clarify the situation and see if new issues are still lingering with this test. Luis