Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] enable bs > ps in XFS

From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com>,
	willy@infradead.org, djwong@kernel.org, brauner@kernel.org,
	david@fromorbit.com, chandan.babu@oracle.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org,
	gost.dev@samsung.com, p.raghav@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] enable bs > ps in XFS
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:12:38 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y18zxvpd.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240425113746.335530-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com>

"Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com> writes:

> From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
>
> This is the fourth version of the series that enables block size > page size
> (Large Block Size) in XFS. The context and motivation can be seen in cover
> letter of the RFC v1[1]. We also recorded a talk about this effort at LPC [3],
> if someone would like more context on this effort.
>
> This series does not split a folio during truncation even though we have
> an API to do so due to some issues with writeback. While it is not a
> blocker, this feature can be added as a future improvement once we
> get the base patches upstream (See patch 7).
>
> A lot of emphasis has been put on testing using kdevops. The testing has
> been split into regression and progression.
>
> Regression testing:
> In regression testing, we ran the whole test suite to check for
> *regression on existing profiles due to the page cache changes.
>
> No regression was found with the patches added on top.
>
> Progression testing:
> For progression testing, we tested for 8k, 16k, 32k and 64k block sizes.
> To compare it with existing support, an ARM VM with 64k base page system
> (without our patches) was used as a reference to check for actual failures
> due to LBS support in a 4k base page size system.
>
> There are some tests that assumes block size < page size that needs to
> be fixed. I have a tree with fixes for xfstests here [6], which I will be
> sending soon to the list. Already a part of this has been upstreamed to
> fstest.
>
> No new failures were found with the LBS support.

I just did portability testing by creating XFS with 16k bs on x86 VM (4k
pagesize), created some files + checksums. I then moved the disk to
Power VM with 64k pagesize and mounted this. I was able to mount and
all the file checksums passed.

Then I did the vice versa, created a filesystem on Power VM with 64k
blocksize and created 10 files with random data of 10MB each. I then
hotplugged this device out from Power and plugged it into x86 VM and
mounted it.

<Logs of the 2nd operation>
~# mount /dev/vdk /mnt1/
[   35.145350] XFS (vdk): EXPERIMENTAL: Filesystem with Large Block Size (65536 bytes) enabled.
[   35.149858] XFS (vdk): Mounting V5 Filesystem 91933a8b-1370-4931-97d1-c21213f31f8f
[   35.227459] XFS (vdk): Ending clean mount
[   35.235090] xfs filesystem being mounted at /mnt1 supports timestamps until 2038-01-19 (0x7fffffff)
~# cd /mnt1/
~# sha256sum -c checksums 
file-1.img: OK
file-2.img: OK
file-3.img: OK
file-4.img: OK
file-5.img: OK
file-6.img: OK
file-7.img: OK
file-8.img: OK
file-9.img: OK
file-10.img: OK

So thanks for this nice portability which this series offers :) 

-ritesh