linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 11/11] ext4: run mballoc test with different layouts setting

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <87msy6kljt.fsf@doe.com>
Date:   Fri, 01 Sep 2023 20:06:22 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To:     Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, tytso@....edu,
        adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 11/11] ext4: run mballoc test with different layouts setting

Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com> writes:

> Use KUNIT_CASE_PARAM to run mbalaloc test with different layouts setting.
                              ^^^ mballoc
small nit below
  
>
> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c
> index d643c56ac003..af48a39c8ba2 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc-test.c
> @@ -196,21 +196,11 @@ static int ext4_mb_mark_context_stub(struct ext4_mark_context *mc,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -#define TEST_BLOCKSIZE_BITS 10
> -#define TEST_CLUSTER_BITS 3
> -#define TEST_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP 8192
> -#define TEST_GROUP_COUNT 4
> -#define TEST_DESC_SIZE 64
>  #define TEST_GOAL_GROUP 1
>  static int mbt_kunit_init(struct kunit *test)
>  {
> -	struct mbt_ext4_block_layout layout = {
> -		.blocksize_bits = TEST_BLOCKSIZE_BITS,
> -		.cluster_bits = TEST_CLUSTER_BITS,
> -		.blocks_per_group = TEST_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP,
> -		.group_count = TEST_GROUP_COUNT,
> -		.desc_size = TEST_DESC_SIZE,
> -	};
> +	struct mbt_ext4_block_layout *layout =
> +		(struct mbt_ext4_block_layout *)(test->param_value);
>  	struct super_block *sb;
>  	int ret;
>  
> @@ -218,7 +208,7 @@ static int mbt_kunit_init(struct kunit *test)
>  	if (sb == NULL)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	mbt_init_sb_layout(sb, &layout);
> +	mbt_init_sb_layout(sb, layout);
>  
>  	ret = mbt_ctx_init(sb);
>  	if (ret != 0) {
> @@ -304,9 +294,43 @@ static void test_new_blocks_simple(struct kunit *test)
>  		"unexpectedly get block when no block is available");
>  }
>  
> +static const struct mbt_ext4_block_layout mbt_test_layouts[] = {
> +	{
> +		.blocksize_bits = 10,
> +		.cluster_bits = 3,
> +		.blocks_per_group = 8192,
> +		.group_count = 4,
> +		.desc_size = 64,
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.blocksize_bits = 12,
> +		.cluster_bits = 3,
> +		.blocks_per_group = 8192,
> +		.group_count = 4,
> +		.desc_size = 64,
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.blocksize_bits = 18,

64k blocksize is more common due to platforms with 64k pagesize like
Power and sometimes arm64. I would rather make it 16 here.

I tested it on Power - 

[    2.546687][    T1] KTAP version 1
[    2.547123][    T1] 1..2
[    2.547447][    T1]     KTAP version 1
[    2.547927][    T1]     # Subtest: ext4_mballoc_test
[    2.548562][    T1]     1..1
[    2.548933][    T1]         KTAP version 1
[    2.549457][    T1]         # Subtest: test_new_blocks_simple
[    2.549550][  T108] kunit_try_catch (108) used greatest stack depth: 14512 bytes left
[    2.549644][    T1]         ok 1 block_bits=10 cluster_bits=3 blocks_per_group=8192 group_count=4 desc_size=64
[    2.552780][  T110] kunit_try_catch (110) used greatest stack depth: 14464 bytes left
[    2.552882][    T1]         ok 2 block_bits=12 cluster_bits=3 blocks_per_group=8192 group_count=4 desc_size=64
[    2.555909][    T1]         ok 3 block_bits=18 cluster_bits=3 blocks_per_group=8192 group_count=4 desc_size=64
[    2.557184][    T1]     # test_new_blocks_simple: pass:3 fail:0 skip:0 total:3
[    2.557186][    T1]     ok 1 test_new_blocks_simple
[    2.558083][    T1] # Totals: pass:3 fail:0 skip:0 total:3
[    2.558688][    T1] ok 1 ext4_mballoc_test

Looks good to me. Feel free to add -

Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>