On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:32:12AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 4:29:25 AM IST Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:56:08AM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > > xfs_alloc_file_space() rounds up allocation requests by the filesystem
> > > block size. Hence this commit changes the test to work with block size
> > > units rather than with a multiple of 4096 bytes.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > tests/xfs/009 | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > > tests/xfs/009.out | 66 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > > 2 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/009 b/tests/xfs/009
> > > index 68f6379..70717eb 100755
> > > --- a/tests/xfs/009
> > > +++ b/tests/xfs/009
> > > @@ -14,9 +14,6 @@ here=`pwd`
> > > tmp=/tmp/$$
> > > status=1 # failure is the default!
> > > trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15
> > > -# This isn't really related to fs block size, it's just what
> > > -# alloc uses for the "block" unit in it's input parameters...
> > > -bsize=4096
> > >
> > > _cleanup()
> > > {
> > > @@ -24,13 +21,6 @@ _cleanup()
> > > _scratch_unmount
> > > }
> > >
> > > -_block_filter()
> > > -{
> > > - sed \
> > > - -e 's/[0-9][0-9]*\.\.[0-9][0-9]*/BLOCKRANGE/g' \
> > > - -e "s/blocksize $bsize/blocksize BSIZE/g"
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > _init()
> > > {
> > > echo "*** mkfs"
> > > @@ -49,11 +39,6 @@ _init()
> > > fi
> > > }
> > >
> > > -_filesize()
> > > -{
> > > - ls -l $1 | $AWK_PROG '{print "filesize = " $5}'
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > # get standard environment, filters and checks
> > > . ./common/rc
> > > . ./common/filter
> > > @@ -64,9 +49,86 @@ _supported_os Linux
> > >
> > > _require_scratch
> > >
> > > +_filesize()
> > > +{
> > > + ls -l $1 | $AWK_PROG -v bsize="$bsize" '{print "filesize = " $5 / bsize}'
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +_block_filter()
> > > +{
> > > + $AWK_PROG -v bsize="$bsize" '
> > > + /blocksize/ {
> > > + printf(" blocksize BSIZE\n")
> > > +
> > > + next
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /CMD/ {
> > > + split($3, off, "=")
> > > + offset = strtonum(off[2])
> > > + if (offset != -1)
> > > + offset = offset / bsize
> > > +
> > > + split($4, len, "=")
> > > + nr_blocks = strtonum(len[2])
> > > + if (nr_blocks != -1)
> > > + nr_blocks = nr_blocks / bsize
> > > +
> > > + printf(" %s %s off=%s, len=%d\n", $1, $2, offset, nr_blocks)
> > > +
> > > + next
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /MAP/ {
> > > + split($2, off, "=")
> > > + offset = strtonum(off[2])
> > > + if (offset != -1)
> > > + offset = offset / bsize
> > > +
> > > + split($3, len, "=")
> > > +
> > > + nr_blocks = strtonum(len[2])
> > > +
> > > + if (nr_blocks != -1)
> > > + nr_blocks = nr_blocks / bsize
> > > +
> > > + printf(" %s off=%s, len=%d %s\n", $1, offset, nr_blocks, $4)
> > > +
> > > + next
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /TRUNCATE/ {
> > > + split($2, off, "=")
> > > + offset = strtonum(off[2]) / bsize
> > > +
> > > + printf(" %s off=%s\n", $1, offset)
> > > +
> > > + next
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /\[[0-9]+,[0-9]+\]:/ {
> > > + printf(" %s BLOCKRANGE\n", $1)
> > > +
> > > + next
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + {
> > > + print
> > > +
> > > + next
> > > + }
> > > + '
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > _init
> > > out=$SCRATCH_MNT/$$.tmp
> > >
> > > +# This isn't really related to fs block size, it's just what
> > > +# alloc uses for the "block" unit in it's input parameters...
> > > +# However, xfs_alloc_file_space() rounds up allocation
> > > +# request by the filesystem's block size.
> > > +bsize=$(_get_block_size $SCRATCH_MNT)
> >
> > [Sorry for the extremely long delay, I've been on leave...]
> >
> > Hm. Certain filesystems draw a distinction between the fundamental
> > block size and the minimum file block mapping size. ocfs2 supports
> > having a file cluster size (mkfs.ocfs2 -C) that is greater than the fs
> > block size, and (I think) xfs can achieve something similar for files on
> > a realtime device via the mkfs.xfs -r extsize= option.
> >
> > If you're dealing with writing things into a file for a test, I think
> > you have to use _get_file_block_size to make sure that you don't fall
> > afoul of the cluster/block difference. I don't know if you've checked
> > that for this patch series...?
>
> Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know about the existance of
> _get_file_block_size. I will go through the patchset once again
> and figure out which one of _get_block_size v/s _get_file_block_size to use?
<nod>
_get_block_size is usually the appropriate tool when you're trying to
massage a filesystem into creating a particular metadata block (e.g.
fragmenting the free space just enough to force it to store free space
records in N separate metadata blocks).
_get_file_block_size is more appropriate for massaging a file into a
particular format (e.g. fragmenting a file just enough to force it to
store the file's extent records in N separate metadata blocks).
And mea culpa, the vast majority of tests (including the ones I wrote)
use _g_b_s when they probably mean _g_f_b_s...
--D
>
> --
> chandan
>
