Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] xfs: Block size > PAGE_SIZE support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:04:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 09:14:05AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 05:31:11PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > > 
> > > We've had a fair number of problems reported on 64k block size
> > > filesystems of late, but none of the XFS developers have Power or
> > > ARM machines handy to reproduce them or even really test the fixes.
> > > 
> > > The iomap infrastructure we introduced a while back was designed
> > > with the capabity of block size > page size support in mind, but we
> > > hadn't tried to implement it.
> > > 
> > > So after another 64k block size bug report late last week I said to
> > > Darrick "How hard could it be"?
> > 
> > "Nothing is ever simple" :)
> 
> "It'll only take a couple of minutes!"
> 
> > > About 6 billion (yes, B) fsx ops later, I have most of the XFS
> > > functionality working on 64k block sizes on x86_64.  Buffered
> > > read/write, mmap read/write and direct IO read/write all work. All
> > > the fallocate() operations work correctly, as does truncate. xfsdump
> > > and xfs_restore are happy with it, as is xfs_repair. xfs-scrub
> > > needed some help, but I've tested Darrick's fixes for that quite a
> > > bit over the past few days.
> > > 
> > > It passes most of xfstests - there's some test failures that I have
> > > to determine whether they are code bugs or test problems (i.e. some
> > > tests don't deal with 64k block sizes correctly or assume block size
> > > <= page size).
> > > 
> > > What I haven't tested yet is shared extents - the COW path,
> > > clone_file_range and dedupe_file_range. I discovered earlier today
> > > that fsx doesn't support copy/clone/dedupe_file_operations
> > > operations, so before I go any further I need to enxpahnce fsx. Then
> > 
> > I assume that means you only tested this on reflink=0 filesystems?
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > Looking at fsstress, it looks like we don't test copy_file_range either.
> > I can try adding the missing clone/dedupe/copy to both programs, but
> > maybe you've already done that while I was asleep?
> 
> No, I haven't started on this yet. I've been sleeping. :P

I started wondering if we were missing anything from not having fsx
support clone/dedupe and ended up with:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfstests-dev.git/log/?h=fsstress-clone

--D

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux