Re: [PATCH v4.1 00/23] xfstests: test the nfs/cifs/btrfs/xfs reflink/dedupe ioctls

From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4.1 00/23] xfstests: test the nfs/cifs/btrfs/xfs reflink/dedupe ioctls
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 23:25:11 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160209072511.GA23904@birch.djwong.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160209072106.GH19486@dastard>

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:21:06PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 05:11:45PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Happy New Year!
> > 
> > Dave Chinner: I've renumbered the new tests and pushed to github[3] if
> > you'd like to pull.
> 
> Can you include the commit ID I should see at the head of the
> tree so I can confirm I'm pulling the right branch?

Heh, surprisingly, I've never ever sent a pull request to anyone, anywhere. :)

HEAD is 9799e5c5397b7aa14dbc660645ef4ccaf5418c78

> BTW, git doesn't like this:
> 
> https://github.com/djwong/xfstests/tree/for-dave
> 
> What git really wants is the tree url with a separate branch name
> like so:
> 
> https://github.com/djwong/xfstests.git for-dave
> 
> (i.e. the typical output from a git request-pull command)
> 
> > This is a (no longer) small patch set against the reflink/dedupe test
> > cases in xfstests.  The first four patches fix errors in the existing
> > reflink tests, some of which are from Christoph Hellwig.
> > 
> > Patches 5-6 refactor the dmerror code so that we can use it to
> > simulate transient IO errors, then use this code to test that
> > unwritten extent conversion does NOT happen after a directio write to
> > an unwritten extent hits a disk error.   Due to a bug in the VFS
> > directio code, ext4 can disclose stale disk contents if an aio dio
> > write fails; XFS suffers this problem for any failing dio write to an
> > unwritten extent.  Christoph's kernel patchset titled "vfs/xfs:
> > directio updates to ease COW handling V2" (and a separate ext4 warning
> > cleanup) is needed to fix this.
> > 
> > Patches 7-9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 23 exercise various parts
> > of the copy on write behavior that are necessary to support shared
> > blocks.  The earlier patches focus on correct CoW behavior in the
> > presence of IO errors during the copy-write, and the later patches
> > focus on XFS' new cow-extent-size hint that greatly reduces
> > fragmentation due to copy on write behavior by encouraging the
> > allocator to allocate larger extents of replacement blocks.
> > 
> > Patches 10-12 and 14 perform stress testing on reflink and CoW to
> > check the behaviors when we get close to maximum refcount, when we
> > specify obnxiously large offsets and lengths, and when we try to
> > reflink millions of extents at a time.
> > 
> > Patch 16 tests quota accounting behavior when reflink is enabled.
> > 
> > Patch 19 adds a few tests for the XFS reverse mapping btree to ensure
> > that things like metadump and growfs work correctly.
> > 
> > Patch 22 checks that get_bmapx and fiemap (on XFS) correctly flag
> > extents as having shared blocks.  XFS now follows btrfs and ocfs2
> > FIEMAP behavior such that if any blocks of a file's extent are shared,
> > the whole extent is marked shared.  This is in contrast to earlier
> > XFS-only behavior that reported shared and non-shared regions as
> > separate extents.
> 
> This may change - xfs_bmap doesn't combine extents in it's output
> even if they are adjacent. For debugging purposes (which is what
> xfs_bmap/fiemap is for), it's much better to be able to see the
> exact extent layout and block sharing.
> 
> I suspect the solution of least surprise is to make fiemap behave
> like the other filesystems, and make xfs_bmap behave in a manner
> that is useful to us.... :P

Hehe.  Well... FIEMAP now /does/ act like the other filesystems.

But perhaps we can do better with getbmapx and show the exact
shared regions.  I thought about adding a flag for that, but...

> > If you're going to start using this mess, you probably ought to just
> > pull from my github trees for kernel[1], xfsprogs[2], xfstests[3],
> > xfs-docs[4], and man-pages[5].  All tests should pass on XFS.   I
> > tried btrfs this weekend and it failed 166, 175, 182, 266, 271, 272,
> > 278, 281, 297, 298, 304, 333, and 334.  ocfs2 (when I jury-rigged it
> > to run the cp_reflink tests) seemed to have a quota bug and crashes
> > hard in 284 (but was otherwise fine).
> 
> Fun fun fun. I'll look through the patchs, and if there's nothing
> major I'll pull it in once I get a commit ID from you.

:)

--D

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com