On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 04:06:14PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 06:07:31PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > +void
> > +clonerange_f(
> > + int opno,
> > + long r)
> > +{
>
> <snip>
>
> > + /* Calculate offsets */
> > + len = (random() % FILELEN_MAX) + 1;
> > + len &= ~(stat1.st_blksize - 1);
> > + if (len == 0)
> > + len = stat1.st_blksize;
> > + if (len > stat1.st_size)
> > + len = stat1.st_size;
> > +
> > + lr = ((__int64_t)random() << 32) + random();
> > + if (stat1.st_size == len)
> > + off1 = 0;
> > + else
> > + off1 = (off64_t)(lr % MIN(stat1.st_size - len, MAXFSIZE));
> > + off1 %= maxfsize;
> > + off1 &= ~(stat1.st_blksize - 1);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If srcfile == destfile, randomly generate destination ranges
> > + * until we find one that doesn't overlap the source range.
> > + */
> > + do {
> > + lr = ((__int64_t)random() << 32) + random();
> > + off2 = (off64_t)(lr % MIN(stat2.st_size + (1024 * 1024), MAXFSIZE));
> > + off2 %= maxfsize;
> > + off2 &= ~(stat2.st_blksize - 1);
> > + } while (stat1.st_ino == stat2.st_ino && llabs(off2 - off1) < len);
>
> I started seeing hangs in generic/013 on cephfs. After spending some
> time looking, I found that this loops forever. And the reason seems to
> be that stat1.st_blksize is too big for this filesystem (4M) -- when
> doing:
"Too big for this filesystem"?
Uh... maybe you'd better start by giving me more stat buffer info --
what's st_size?
> off1 &= ~(stat1.st_blksize - 1);
These bits round the start offset down to block granularity, since clone
range implementations generally require that the ranges align to block
boundaries.
(Though AFAICT ceph doesn't support clone range anyway...)
So reading between the lines, is the problem here that ceph advertises a
blocksize of 4M and fsstress calls clonerange_f with files that are
smaller than 4M in size, so the only possible offsets with a 4M
blocksize are zero and that's why we end up looping forever?
--D
>
> off1 (and off2) will both end up with 0. Does this make sense? Would
> something like:
>
> - off1 &= ~(stat1.st_blksize - 1);
> + if (stat1.st_blksize <= stat1.st_size)
> + off1 &= ~(stat1.st_blksize - 1);
>
> be acceptable? (and a similar change for off2, of course.)
> Cheers,
> --
> Luís
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
