Re: [RFC 00/23] Enable block size > page size in XFS

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


>>> 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:

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.

[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