linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/4] minimum folio order support in filemap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a42b97a9-88d5-b8cd-e36e-81a168dff7cd@suse.de>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2023 12:23:10 +0200
From:   Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>, willy@...radead.org,
        gost.dev@...sung.com, mcgrof@...nel.org, hch@....de,
        jwong@...nel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] minimum folio order support in filemap

On 6/22/23 12:20, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 08:50:06AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 6/22/23 07:51, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> On 6/22/23 00:07, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 11:00:24AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/23 10:38, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
>>>>> Hmm. Most unfortunate; I've just finished my own patchset
>>>>> (duplicating much
>>>>> of this work) to get 'brd' running with large folios.
>>>>> And it even works this time, 'fsx' from the xfstest suite runs
>>>>> happily on
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> So you've converted a filesystem to use bs > ps, too? Or is the
>>>> filesystem that fsx is running on just using normal 4kB block size?
>>>> If the latter, then fsx is not actually testing the large folio page
>>>> cache support, it's mostly just doing 4kB aligned IO to brd....
>>>>
>>> I have been running fsx on an xfs with bs=16k, and it worked like a charm.
>>> I'll try to run the xfstest suite once I'm finished with merging
>>> Pankajs patches into my patchset.
>>> Well, would've been too easy.
>> 'fsx' bails out at test 27 (collapse), with:
>>
>> XFS (ram0): Corruption detected. Unmount and run xfs_repair
>> XFS (ram0): Internal error isnullstartblock(got.br_startblock) at line 5787
>> of file fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c.  Caller
>> xfs_bmap_collapse_extents+0x2d9/0x320 [xfs]
>>
>> Guess some more work needs to be done here.
> 
> Yup, start by trying to get the fstests that run fsx through cleanly
> first. That'll get you through the first 100,000 or so test ops
> in a few different run configs. Those canned tests are:
> 
> tests/generic/075
> tests/generic/112
> tests/generic/127
> tests/generic/231
> tests/generic/455
> tests/generic/457
> 
THX.

Any preferences for the filesystem size?
I'm currently running off two ramdisks with 512M each; if that's too 
small I need to increase the memory of the VM ...

Cheers,

Hannes