[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180328194017.GM4818@magnolia>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:40:17 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To: Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: always free inline data before resetting inode fork
during ifree
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:30:06PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 02:32:28PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >How much time are your test rigs going to be able to spend running
> >xfstests? A single pass on a single filesysetm config on spinning
> >disks will take 3-4 hours of run time. And we have at least 4 common
> >configs that need validation (v4, v4 w/ 512b block size, v5
> >(defaults), and v5 w/ reflink+rmap) and so you're looking at a
> >minimum 12-24 hours of machine test time per kernel you'd need to
> >test.
>
> No reason they can't run in parallel, right?
Correct, parallelizing them turns horrifying long test runs into
manageable quantities.
> >> > From: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
> >> > To: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
> >> > To: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
> >> > Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Correctly invert xfs_buftarg LRU isolation logic
> >> > In-Reply-To: <20180306102638.25322-1-vbendel@...hat.com>
> >> > References: <20180306102638.25322-1-vbendel@...hat.com>
> >> >
> >> > Hi Vratislav Bendel,
> >> >
> >> > [This is an automated email]
> >> >
> >> > This commit has been processed by the -stable helper bot and determined
> >> > to be a high probability candidate for -stable trees. (score: 6.4845)
> >> >
> >> > The bot has tested the following trees: v4.15.12, v4.14.29, v4.9.89, v4.4.123, v4.1.50, v3.18.101.
> >> >
> >> > v4.15.12: OK!
> >> > v4.14.29: OK!
> >> > v4.9.89: OK!
> >> > v4.4.123: OK!
> >> > v4.1.50: OK!
> >> > v3.18.101: OK!
> >> >
> >> > Please reply with "ack" to have this patch included in the appropriate stable trees.
> >
> >That might help, but the testing and validation is completely
> >opaque. If I wanted to know what that "OK!" actually meant, where
> >do I go to find that out?
>
> This is actually something I want maintainers to dictate. What sort of
> testing would make the XFS folks happy here? Right now I'm doing
> "./check 'xfs/*'" with xfstests. Is it sufficient? Anything else you'd like to see?
FWIW /me usually runs ./check '-g auto,quick,clone,dedupe,fsmap,rmap'
with the following four mkfs configs:
MKFS_OPTIONS='-m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1, -b size=1024,'
MKFS_OPTIONS='-m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1,'
MKFS_OPTIONS='-m crc=0,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0,'
MKFS_OPTIONS='-m crc=0,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0, -b size=512,'
Eventually I'll turn quotas on all the time too, time permitting.
--D
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sasha--
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" 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