* [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs @ 2018-04-27 8:22 Zorro Lang 2018-05-09 16:02 ` Eryu Guan 2018-05-10 22:18 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Zorro Lang @ 2018-04-27 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: fstests When test on large SCRATCH_DEV, grow a small XFS to huge size is a horrible thing (e.g grow 128m to 500T). So add a helper named _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() to do below things: 1) If --large-fs is used, limit growfs size. 2) If a limit size parameter is specified, make sure growfs won't beyond this size. Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> --- common/xfs | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tests/xfs/002 | 2 +- tests/xfs/127 | 2 +- tests/xfs/233 | 2 +- 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/common/xfs b/common/xfs index e0bc3f43..6200297c 100644 --- a/common/xfs +++ b/common/xfs @@ -721,3 +721,37 @@ _require_xfs_db_write_array() rm -f $TEST_DIR/$seq.img [ $supported -eq 0 ] && _notrun "xfs_db write can't support array" } + +# If test on large device or a limit size is specified, this helper make sure +# xfs_growfs won't beyond this limit (try to grow 10 times current fs size by +# default). +# usage: _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited [size_by_byte] +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() +{ + + local limit_size="$1" + local option="" + + if [ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" = "yes" -o -n "$limit_size" ]; then + local tmp=`mktemp -u` + xfs_info $SCRATCH_MNT | _filter_mkfs > /dev/null 2>$tmp.info + . $tmp.info + rm -f $tmp.info + + local fs_size=$((dbsize * dblocks)) + local dev_size_kb=`_get_device_size $SCRATCH_DEV` + + # default limit_size is 10 times current fs size. + if [ -z "$limit_size" ]; then + limit_size=$((fs_size * 10)) + fi + # don't limit growfs size if device size is smaller + if [ $((dev_size_kb * 1024)) -gt $limit_size ]; then + option="-D $((limit_size / dbsize))" + else + option="" + fi + fi + + $XFS_GROWFS_PROG $option $SCRATCH_MNT +} diff --git a/tests/xfs/002 b/tests/xfs/002 index 741117be..42d2e2d7 100755 --- a/tests/xfs/002 +++ b/tests/xfs/002 @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ _scratch_xfs_db -x -c "sb 2" -c "type data" -c "write fill 0xff 224 4" _scratch_mount # This should pass -$XFS_GROWFS_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "growfs failed" +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "growfs failed" # success, all done status=0 diff --git a/tests/xfs/127 b/tests/xfs/127 index 9df99904..c05fcee9 100755 --- a/tests/xfs/127 +++ b/tests/xfs/127 @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ _cp_reflink $testdir/original $testdir/copy1 _cp_reflink $testdir/copy1 $testdir/copy2 echo "Grow fs" -$XFS_GROWFS_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full _scratch_cycle_mount echo "Create more reflink copies" diff --git a/tests/xfs/233 b/tests/xfs/233 index e61c444d..a0dd42e7 100755 --- a/tests/xfs/233 +++ b/tests/xfs/233 @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ cp -p $testdir/original $testdir/copy1 cp -p $testdir/copy1 $testdir/copy2 echo "Grow fs" -$XFS_GROWFS_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full _scratch_cycle_mount echo "Create more copies" -- 2.14.3 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs 2018-04-27 8:22 [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs Zorro Lang @ 2018-05-09 16:02 ` Eryu Guan 2018-05-09 16:22 ` Darrick J. Wong 2018-05-10 22:18 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Eryu Guan @ 2018-05-09 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zorro Lang; +Cc: fstests, linux-xfs [cc linux-xfs list for xfs test] On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > When test on large SCRATCH_DEV, grow a small XFS to huge size is a > horrible thing (e.g grow 128m to 500T). So add a helper named > _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() to do below things: > > 1) If --large-fs is used, limit growfs size. > 2) If a limit size parameter is specified, make sure growfs won't > beyond this size. > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> Sorry for the late review.. This looks fine to me, but I'd like to let XFS developers to take a look too, I'm not sure if "10 times larger" is a sane default value. BTW, the subject doesn't quite describe what the patch does: "xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs" The patch also limits the growfs size based on the user-specified fs size. > --- > common/xfs | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/xfs/002 | 2 +- > tests/xfs/127 | 2 +- > tests/xfs/233 | 2 +- > 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/common/xfs b/common/xfs > index e0bc3f43..6200297c 100644 > --- a/common/xfs > +++ b/common/xfs > @@ -721,3 +721,37 @@ _require_xfs_db_write_array() > rm -f $TEST_DIR/$seq.img > [ $supported -eq 0 ] && _notrun "xfs_db write can't support array" > } > + > +# If test on large device or a limit size is specified, this helper make sure > +# xfs_growfs won't beyond this limit (try to grow 10 times current fs size by > +# default). > +# usage: _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited [size_by_byte] > +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() I think we could just name it as _scratch_xfs_growfs(). Thanks, Eryu > +{ > + > + local limit_size="$1" > + local option="" > + > + if [ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" = "yes" -o -n "$limit_size" ]; then > + local tmp=`mktemp -u` > + xfs_info $SCRATCH_MNT | _filter_mkfs > /dev/null 2>$tmp.info > + . $tmp.info > + rm -f $tmp.info > + > + local fs_size=$((dbsize * dblocks)) > + local dev_size_kb=`_get_device_size $SCRATCH_DEV` > + > + # default limit_size is 10 times current fs size. > + if [ -z "$limit_size" ]; then > + limit_size=$((fs_size * 10)) > + fi > + # don't limit growfs size if device size is smaller > + if [ $((dev_size_kb * 1024)) -gt $limit_size ]; then > + option="-D $((limit_size / dbsize))" > + else > + option="" > + fi > + fi > + > + $XFS_GROWFS_PROG $option $SCRATCH_MNT > +} > diff --git a/tests/xfs/002 b/tests/xfs/002 > index 741117be..42d2e2d7 100755 > --- a/tests/xfs/002 > +++ b/tests/xfs/002 > @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ _scratch_xfs_db -x -c "sb 2" -c "type data" -c "write fill 0xff 224 4" > _scratch_mount > > # This should pass > -$XFS_GROWFS_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "growfs failed" > +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "growfs failed" > > # success, all done > status=0 > diff --git a/tests/xfs/127 b/tests/xfs/127 > index 9df99904..c05fcee9 100755 > --- a/tests/xfs/127 > +++ b/tests/xfs/127 > @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ _cp_reflink $testdir/original $testdir/copy1 > _cp_reflink $testdir/copy1 $testdir/copy2 > > echo "Grow fs" > -$XFS_GROWFS_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full > +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full > _scratch_cycle_mount > > echo "Create more reflink copies" > diff --git a/tests/xfs/233 b/tests/xfs/233 > index e61c444d..a0dd42e7 100755 > --- a/tests/xfs/233 > +++ b/tests/xfs/233 > @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ cp -p $testdir/original $testdir/copy1 > cp -p $testdir/copy1 $testdir/copy2 > > echo "Grow fs" > -$XFS_GROWFS_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full > +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full > _scratch_cycle_mount > > echo "Create more copies" > -- > 2.14.3 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs 2018-05-09 16:02 ` Eryu Guan @ 2018-05-09 16:22 ` Darrick J. Wong 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2018-05-09 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eryu Guan; +Cc: Zorro Lang, fstests, linux-xfs On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:02:14AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > [cc linux-xfs list for xfs test] > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > When test on large SCRATCH_DEV, grow a small XFS to huge size is a > > horrible thing (e.g grow 128m to 500T). So add a helper named > > _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() to do below things: > > > > 1) If --large-fs is used, limit growfs size. > > 2) If a limit size parameter is specified, make sure growfs won't > > beyond this size. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> > > Sorry for the late review.. > > This looks fine to me, but I'd like to let XFS developers to take a look > too, I'm not sure if "10 times larger" is a sane default value. > > BTW, the subject doesn't quite describe what the patch does: > > "xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs" > > The patch also limits the growfs size based on the user-specified fs > size. Agreed. > > --- > > common/xfs | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/xfs/002 | 2 +- > > tests/xfs/127 | 2 +- > > tests/xfs/233 | 2 +- > > 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/common/xfs b/common/xfs > > index e0bc3f43..6200297c 100644 > > --- a/common/xfs > > +++ b/common/xfs > > @@ -721,3 +721,37 @@ _require_xfs_db_write_array() > > rm -f $TEST_DIR/$seq.img > > [ $supported -eq 0 ] && _notrun "xfs_db write can't support array" > > } > > + > > +# If test on large device or a limit size is specified, this helper make sure > > +# xfs_growfs won't beyond this limit (try to grow 10 times current fs size by > > +# default). > > +# usage: _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited [size_by_byte] > > +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() > > I think we could just name it as _scratch_xfs_growfs(). And tweak the documentation to make its behavior clearer: "Grows the mounted scratch filesystem. "If max_size_in_bytes is specified, the filesystem will not be grown larger than that size. Otherwise, if LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV == yes, the filesystem will not be grown larger than 10x the current size. If max_size_in_bytes is not specified and LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV != yes, the scratch filesystem will be expanded to fit the scratch device." Assuming that's the intended behavior. --D > > Thanks, > Eryu > > > +{ > > + > > + local limit_size="$1" > > + local option="" > > + > > + if [ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" = "yes" -o -n "$limit_size" ]; then > > + local tmp=`mktemp -u` > > + xfs_info $SCRATCH_MNT | _filter_mkfs > /dev/null 2>$tmp.info > > + . $tmp.info > > + rm -f $tmp.info > > + > > + local fs_size=$((dbsize * dblocks)) > > + local dev_size_kb=`_get_device_size $SCRATCH_DEV` > > + > > + # default limit_size is 10 times current fs size. > > + if [ -z "$limit_size" ]; then > > + limit_size=$((fs_size * 10)) > > + fi > > + # don't limit growfs size if device size is smaller > > + if [ $((dev_size_kb * 1024)) -gt $limit_size ]; then > > + option="-D $((limit_size / dbsize))" > > + else > > + option="" > > + fi > > + fi > > + > > + $XFS_GROWFS_PROG $option $SCRATCH_MNT > > +} > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/002 b/tests/xfs/002 > > index 741117be..42d2e2d7 100755 > > --- a/tests/xfs/002 > > +++ b/tests/xfs/002 > > @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ _scratch_xfs_db -x -c "sb 2" -c "type data" -c "write fill 0xff 224 4" > > _scratch_mount > > > > # This should pass > > -$XFS_GROWFS_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "growfs failed" > > +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "growfs failed" > > > > # success, all done > > status=0 > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/127 b/tests/xfs/127 > > index 9df99904..c05fcee9 100755 > > --- a/tests/xfs/127 > > +++ b/tests/xfs/127 > > @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ _cp_reflink $testdir/original $testdir/copy1 > > _cp_reflink $testdir/copy1 $testdir/copy2 > > > > echo "Grow fs" > > -$XFS_GROWFS_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full > > +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full > > _scratch_cycle_mount > > > > echo "Create more reflink copies" > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/233 b/tests/xfs/233 > > index e61c444d..a0dd42e7 100755 > > --- a/tests/xfs/233 > > +++ b/tests/xfs/233 > > @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ cp -p $testdir/original $testdir/copy1 > > cp -p $testdir/copy1 $testdir/copy2 > > > > echo "Grow fs" > > -$XFS_GROWFS_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full > > +_scratch_xfs_growfs_limited 2>&1 | _filter_growfs >> $seqres.full > > _scratch_cycle_mount > > > > echo "Create more copies" > > -- > > 2.14.3 > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs 2018-04-27 8:22 [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs Zorro Lang 2018-05-09 16:02 ` Eryu Guan @ 2018-05-10 22:18 ` Dave Chinner 2018-05-11 3:41 ` Zorro Lang 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2018-05-10 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zorro Lang; +Cc: fstests On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > When test on large SCRATCH_DEV, grow a small XFS to huge size is a > horrible thing (e.g grow 128m to 500T). So add a helper named > _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() to do below things: > > 1) If --large-fs is used, limit growfs size. > 2) If a limit size parameter is specified, make sure growfs won't > beyond this size. > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> I think I originally just didn't run growfs tests like this on large filesystems. i.e. require_no_largefs.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs 2018-05-10 22:18 ` Dave Chinner @ 2018-05-11 3:41 ` Zorro Lang 2018-05-11 23:29 ` Dave Chinner 2018-05-12 5:53 ` Eryu Guan 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Zorro Lang @ 2018-05-11 3:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: fstests, darrick.wong, sandeen On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:18:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > When test on large SCRATCH_DEV, grow a small XFS to huge size is a > > horrible thing (e.g grow 128m to 500T). So add a helper named > > _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() to do below things: > > > > 1) If --large-fs is used, limit growfs size. > > 2) If a limit size parameter is specified, make sure growfs won't > > beyond this size. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> > > I think I originally just didn't run growfs tests like this on large > filesystems. i.e. require_no_largefs.... Hmm... Sorry, am I facing different review-points from 3 different XFS maintainers? ... Dave: require_no_largefs is better. Darrick: nearly ack this patch. Eric: 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> [15:01] <zoro> [00:55:47] I think maybe use _require_no_large_scratch_dev for xfs/002 will be better. Grow a 128M XFS to large size is 'horrible' 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> just limit growfs to something smaller. What should I do next? Thanks, Zorro > > Cheers, > > Dave. > > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs 2018-05-11 3:41 ` Zorro Lang @ 2018-05-11 23:29 ` Dave Chinner 2018-05-12 0:15 ` Darrick J. Wong 2018-05-12 5:53 ` Eryu Guan 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2018-05-11 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zorro Lang; +Cc: fstests, darrick.wong, sandeen On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:41:50AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:18:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > When test on large SCRATCH_DEV, grow a small XFS to huge size is a > > > horrible thing (e.g grow 128m to 500T). So add a helper named > > > _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() to do below things: > > > > > > 1) If --large-fs is used, limit growfs size. > > > 2) If a limit size parameter is specified, make sure growfs won't > > > beyond this size. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> > > > > I think I originally just didn't run growfs tests like this on large > > filesystems. i.e. require_no_largefs.... > > Hmm... Sorry, am I facing different review-points from 3 different XFS maintainers? ... I'm not a maintainer, I'm just the guy who added this functionality to xfstests originally. Deciding what is to be done needs to start from an understanding of the criteria I used for skipping tests on large devices. In this case, I never intended to have multiple order magnitude growfs tests run on large scratch devices. When I added large device support, I tried to avoid tests that we already had substantial coverage for. i.e. if inreasing the space used by the test doesn't increase test coverage but only increased test runtime, then I skipped it. In this case, we already test small to large size growfs via loopback devices on small scratch devices (e.g. xfs/078), so doing it on extremely large scratch devices doesn't reallycover any new code or error conditions. Hence, based on my original criteria for deciding what tests to run on large filesystems, I would have skipped this test if it caused excessive runtime. I was testing on sparse devices on SSDs, so seek times for growfs did not impact performance, hence I probably didn't skip it... > Dave: require_no_largefs is better. > Darrick: nearly ack this patch. > Eric: > 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> [15:01] <zoro> [00:55:47] I think maybe use _require_no_large_scratch_dev for xfs/002 will be better. Grow a 128M XFS to large size is 'horrible' > 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> just limit growfs to something smaller. > > What should I do next? Make your own decision about how best to proceed based on the feedback you've received. Or ask the fstests maintainer to decide what is best.... :P Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs 2018-05-11 23:29 ` Dave Chinner @ 2018-05-12 0:15 ` Darrick J. Wong 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2018-05-12 0:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: Zorro Lang, fstests, darrick.wong, sandeen On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 09:29:10AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:41:50AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:18:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > > When test on large SCRATCH_DEV, grow a small XFS to huge size is a > > > > horrible thing (e.g grow 128m to 500T). So add a helper named > > > > _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() to do below things: > > > > > > > > 1) If --large-fs is used, limit growfs size. > > > > 2) If a limit size parameter is specified, make sure growfs won't > > > > beyond this size. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> > > > > > > I think I originally just didn't run growfs tests like this on large > > > filesystems. i.e. require_no_largefs.... > > > > Hmm... Sorry, am I facing different review-points from 3 different XFS maintainers? ... > > I'm not a maintainer, I'm just the guy who added this functionality > to xfstests originally. Deciding what is to be done needs to start > from an understanding of the criteria I used for skipping tests on > large devices. In this case, I never intended to have multiple > order magnitude growfs tests run on large scratch devices. > > When I added large device support, I tried to avoid tests that we > already had substantial coverage for. i.e. if inreasing the space > used by the test doesn't increase test coverage but only increased > test runtime, then I skipped it. In this case, we already test > small to large size growfs via loopback devices on small scratch > devices (e.g. xfs/078), so doing it on extremely large scratch > devices doesn't reallycover any new code or error conditions. > > Hence, based on my original criteria for deciding what tests to run > on large filesystems, I would have skipped this test if it caused > excessive runtime. I was testing on sparse devices on SSDs, so seek > times for growfs did not impact performance, hence I probably didn't > skip it... > > > Dave: require_no_largefs is better. > > Darrick: nearly ack this patch. > > Eric: > > 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> [15:01] <zoro> [00:55:47] I think maybe use _require_no_large_scratch_dev for xfs/002 will be better. Grow a 128M XFS to large size is 'horrible' > > 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> just limit growfs to something smaller. > > > > What should I do next? > > Make your own decision about how best to proceed based on the > feedback you've received. Or ask the fstests maintainer to decide > what is best.... :P No, don'... :) jk Yes, it's worth asking Eryu. I'm ok with either resolution (_require_no_large_scratch_dev or just constrict it to 10x growfs). --D > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs 2018-05-11 3:41 ` Zorro Lang 2018-05-11 23:29 ` Dave Chinner @ 2018-05-12 5:53 ` Eryu Guan 2018-05-12 13:19 ` Zorro Lang 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Eryu Guan @ 2018-05-12 5:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zorro Lang; +Cc: Dave Chinner, fstests, darrick.wong, sandeen On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:41:50AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:18:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > When test on large SCRATCH_DEV, grow a small XFS to huge size is a > > > horrible thing (e.g grow 128m to 500T). So add a helper named > > > _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() to do below things: > > > > > > 1) If --large-fs is used, limit growfs size. > > > 2) If a limit size parameter is specified, make sure growfs won't > > > beyond this size. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> > > > > I think I originally just didn't run growfs tests like this on large > > filesystems. i.e. require_no_largefs.... > > Hmm... Sorry, am I facing different review-points from 3 different XFS maintainers? ... > > Dave: require_no_largefs is better. > Darrick: nearly ack this patch. > Eric: > 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> [15:01] <zoro> [00:55:47] I think maybe use _require_no_large_scratch_dev for xfs/002 will be better. Grow a 128M XFS to large size is 'horrible' > 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> just limit growfs to something smaller. > > What should I do next? If testing on large device won't add more test coverage but only test runtime, I'd like to just skip the tests. Would you please send a new version of the patch that adds _require_no_large_scratch_dev to the affected tests? And thanks all for the comments! Eryu > > Thanks, > Zorro > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave. > > > > -- > > Dave Chinner > > david@fromorbit.com > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs 2018-05-12 5:53 ` Eryu Guan @ 2018-05-12 13:19 ` Zorro Lang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Zorro Lang @ 2018-05-12 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eryu Guan; +Cc: Dave Chinner, fstests, darrick.wong, sandeen On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 01:53:28PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:41:50AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:18:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > > When test on large SCRATCH_DEV, grow a small XFS to huge size is a > > > > horrible thing (e.g grow 128m to 500T). So add a helper named > > > > _scratch_xfs_growfs_limited() to do below things: > > > > > > > > 1) If --large-fs is used, limit growfs size. > > > > 2) If a limit size parameter is specified, make sure growfs won't > > > > beyond this size. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> > > > > > > I think I originally just didn't run growfs tests like this on large > > > filesystems. i.e. require_no_largefs.... > > > > Hmm... Sorry, am I facing different review-points from 3 different XFS maintainers? ... > > > > Dave: require_no_largefs is better. > > Darrick: nearly ack this patch. > > Eric: > > 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> [15:01] <zoro> [00:55:47] I think maybe use _require_no_large_scratch_dev for xfs/002 will be better. Grow a 128M XFS to large size is 'horrible' > > 2018-04-27 04:03 < sandeen> just limit growfs to something smaller. > > > > What should I do next? > > If testing on large device won't add more test coverage but only test > runtime, I'd like to just skip the tests. > > Would you please send a new version of the patch that adds > _require_no_large_scratch_dev to the affected tests? Sure, going to do that. > > And thanks all for the comments! > > Eryu > > > > > Thanks, > > Zorro > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Dave. > > > > > > -- > > > Dave Chinner > > > david@fromorbit.com > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-05-12 13:19 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-04-27 8:22 [PATCH] xfs: limit xfs_growfs size if test with --large-fs Zorro Lang 2018-05-09 16:02 ` Eryu Guan 2018-05-09 16:22 ` Darrick J. Wong 2018-05-10 22:18 ` Dave Chinner 2018-05-11 3:41 ` Zorro Lang 2018-05-11 23:29 ` Dave Chinner 2018-05-12 0:15 ` Darrick J. Wong 2018-05-12 5:53 ` Eryu Guan 2018-05-12 13:19 ` Zorro Lang
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.