[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <04d101d0cd90$5ac2b980$10482c80$@samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 11:01:46 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
To: 'Theodore Ts'o' <tytso@....edu>,
'Dave Chinner' <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: 'Eric Whitney' <enwlinux@...il.com>, a.sangwan@...sung.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, fstests@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: generic/064 test failures on ext4 (4.2-rc*)
Hi,
Sorry for late response.
I am on vacation. I will check this issue as soon as getting back.
Thanks!
> Yes, that's what is going on. If delayed allocation is disabled (as
> it is in some configuration scenarios), ext4's block allocator doesn't
> do as well, and in some cases it will pick a starting block number for
> the file that ends up splitting the initial file across block groups'
> meta data blocks.
>
> > Really, the number of extents or holes at the intermediate stage
> > doesn't matter. What matters is that after collapsing the holes back
> > out of the file, then number of extents is identical to the original
> > file (i.e. that fcollapse() undoes finsert() exactly).
>
> Yup.
>
> > So changing this code to use _within_tolerance to say that 100 >=
> > num_extents >= 105 is ok would probably be better:
> >
> > _within_tolerance "Extent count" $nextents 100 0 5%
> >
> > This will output a standard pass/fail message rather than an exact
> > count. This allows some wiggle room for filesystem configurations
> > that have unexpected non-contiguous baseline allocation behaviour to
> > pass the test.
>
> Works for me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists