>>> >>> As it is, I'd really prefer stuff that adds significant XFS >>> functionality that we need to test to be based on a current Linus >>> TOT kernel so that we can test it without being impacted by all >>> the random unrelated breakages that regularly happen in linux-next >>> kernels.... >> >> That's understandable! I just rebased onto Linus' tree, this only >> has the bs > ps support on 4k sector size: >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=v6.6-rc2-lbs-nobdev > I think this tree doesn't have some of the last minute changes I did before I sent the RFC. I will sync with Luis offline regarding that. > >> I just did a cursory build / boot / fsx with 16k block size / 4k sector size >> test with this tree only. I havne't ran fstests on it. > > W/ 64k block size, generic/042 fails (maybe just a test block size > thing), generic/091 fails (data corruption on read after ~70 ops) > and then generic/095 hung with a crash in iomap_readpage_iter() > during readahead. > > Looks like a null folio was passed to ifs_alloc(), which implies the > iomap_readpage_ctx didn't have a folio attached to it. Something > isn't working properly in the readahead code, which would also > explain the quick fsx failure... > Yeah, I have noticed this as well. This is the main crash scenario I am noticing when I am running xfstests, and hopefully we will be able to fix it soon. In general, we have had better results with 16k block size than 64k block size. I still don't know why, but the ifs_alloc crash happens in generic/451 with 16k block size. >> Just a heads up, using 512 byte sector size will fail for now, it's a >> regression we have to fix. Likewise using block sizes 1k, 2k will also >> regress on fsx right now. These are regressions we are aware of but >> haven't had time yet to bisect / fix. > > I'm betting that the recently added sub-folio dirty tracking code > got broken by this patchset.... > Hmm, this crossed my mind as well. I am assuming I can really test the sub-folio dirty tracking code on a system which has a page size greater than the block size? Or is there some tests that can already test this? CCing Ritesh as well. > Cheers, > > Dave.
