On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:01:32AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 10:27:35PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 03:31:52PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > With the new copy on write functionality it's possible to reserve so > > > much COW space for a file that we end up overflowing i_delayed_blks. > > > The only user-visible effect of this is to cause totally wrong i_blocks > > > output in stat, so check for that. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I hit xfs_db killed by OOM killer (2 vcpu, 8G memory kvm guest) when > > trying this test and the test takes too long time (I changed the fs size > > from 300T to 300G and tried a test run), perhaps that's why you don't > > put it in auto group? > > Oh. Right. I forget that I patched out xfs_db from > check_xfs_filesystem on my dev tree years ago. > > Um... do we want to remove xfs_db from the check function? Or just open > code a call to xfs_repair $SCRATCH_MNT/a.img at the end of the test? If XFS maintainer removes the xfs_check call in _check_xfs_filesystem(), I'd say I like to see it being removed :) > > As for the 300T size, the reason I picked that is to force the > filesystem to have large enough AGs to support the maximum cowextsize > hint. I'll see if it still works with a 4TB filesystem. After removeing the xfs_db call, I can finish the test within 20s on the same test vm, and a.img only takes 159MB space on $SCRATCH_DEV, so I think 300T fs size is fine. Thanks, Eryu
