On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:46:46PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > Test nfs and its underlying fs, make sure file size as expected > after writting a file, and the speculative allocation space can > be shrunken. > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > Last year I sent a patch to fstests@, but it sometimes fails on the upstream > kernel that year: > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/Y3vTbHqT64gsQ573@magnolia/ > > And we didn't get a proper reason for that, so that patch was blocked. Now > I found this case test passed on current upstream linux [1] (after loop > running it a whole night). So I think it's time to rebase and re-send this > patch to get review. > > Thanks, > Zorro > > [1] > FSTYP -- nfs > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 xxxx 6.5.0-rc4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Aug 1 15:32:55 EDT 2023 > MKFS_OPTIONS -- xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o vers=4.2 -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server /mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-client > > nfs/002 4s ... 4s > Ran: nfs/002 > Passed all 1 tests > > tests/nfs/002 | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/nfs/002.out | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+) > create mode 100755 tests/nfs/002 > create mode 100644 tests/nfs/002.out > > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002 b/tests/nfs/002 > new file mode 100755 > index 00000000..b4b6554c > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tests/nfs/002 > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ > +#! /bin/bash > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +# Copyright (c) 2023 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > +# > +# FS QA Test 002 > +# > +# Make sure nfs gets expected file size after writting a big sized file. It's > +# not only testing nfs, test its underlying fs too. For example a known old bug > +# on xfs (underlying fs) caused nfs get larger file size (e.g. 16M) after > +# writting 10M data to a file. It's fixed by a series of patches around > +# 579b62faa5fb16 ("xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes") Er... has this been banging around in the trunk for 11 years? ;) > +# > +. ./common/preamble > +_begin_fstest auto quick rw > + > +# real QA test starts here > +_supported_fs nfs > +# Need a series of patches related with this patch > +_fixed_by_kernel_commit 579b62faa5fb16 \ > + "xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes" > +_require_test > + > +localfile=$TEST_DIR/testfile.$seq > +rm -rf $localfile > + > +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -t -c "pwrite 0 10m" -c "fsync" $localfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1 > +block_size=`stat -c '%B' $localfile` > +iblocks_expected=$((10 * 1024 * 1024 / $block_size)) > +# Try several times for the speculative allocated file size can be shrunken > +res=1 > +for ((i=0; i<10; i++));do > + iblocks_real=`stat -c '%b' $localfile` > + if [ "$iblocks_expected" = "$iblocks_real" ];then What happens if real < expected? Should there be some sort of bail out for unexpected things like that? > + res=0 > + break > + fi > + sleep 10 > +done Though I guess the runtime is capped at ~100s so maybe it doesn't matter practically. (What happens if xfs blockgc only runs every 5 minutes?) --D > +if [ $res -ne 0 ];then > + echo "Write $iblocks_expected blocks, but get $iblocks_real blocks" > +fi > + > +echo "Silence is golden" > +# success, all done > +status=0 > +exit > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002.out b/tests/nfs/002.out > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000..61705c7c > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tests/nfs/002.out > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > +QA output created by 002 > +Silence is golden > -- > 2.40.1 >
