* [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.