Message-ID: <20240427050517.GC360898@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 22:05:17 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Cc: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>,
	willy@...radead.org, brauner@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com,
	chandan.babu@...cle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hare@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, mcgrof@...nel.org, gost.dev@...sung.com,
	p.raghav@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] enable bs > ps in XFS

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:12:38AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com> writes:
> 
> > From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
> >
> > This is the fourth version of the series that enables block size > page size
> > (Large Block Size) in XFS. The context and motivation can be seen in cover
> > letter of the RFC v1[1]. We also recorded a talk about this effort at LPC [3],
> > if someone would like more context on this effort.
> >
> > This series does not split a folio during truncation even though we have
> > an API to do so due to some issues with writeback. While it is not a
> > blocker, this feature can be added as a future improvement once we
> > get the base patches upstream (See patch 7).
> >
> > A lot of emphasis has been put on testing using kdevops. The testing has
> > been split into regression and progression.
> >
> > Regression testing:
> > In regression testing, we ran the whole test suite to check for
> > *regression on existing profiles due to the page cache changes.
> >
> > No regression was found with the patches added on top.
> >
> > Progression testing:
> > For progression testing, we tested for 8k, 16k, 32k and 64k block sizes.
> > To compare it with existing support, an ARM VM with 64k base page system
> > (without our patches) was used as a reference to check for actual failures
> > due to LBS support in a 4k base page size system.
> >
> > There are some tests that assumes block size < page size that needs to
> > be fixed. I have a tree with fixes for xfstests here [6], which I will be
> > sending soon to the list. Already a part of this has been upstreamed to
> > fstest.
> >
> > No new failures were found with the LBS support.
> 
> I just did portability testing by creating XFS with 16k bs on x86 VM (4k
> pagesize), created some files + checksums. I then moved the disk to
> Power VM with 64k pagesize and mounted this. I was able to mount and
> all the file checksums passed.
> 
> Then I did the vice versa, created a filesystem on Power VM with 64k
> blocksize and created 10 files with random data of 10MB each. I then
> hotplugged this device out from Power and plugged it into x86 VM and
> mounted it.
> 
> <Logs of the 2nd operation>
> ~# mount /dev/vdk /mnt1/
> [   35.145350] XFS (vdk): EXPERIMENTAL: Filesystem with Large Block Size (65536 bytes) enabled.
> [   35.149858] XFS (vdk): Mounting V5 Filesystem 91933a8b-1370-4931-97d1-c21213f31f8f
> [   35.227459] XFS (vdk): Ending clean mount
> [   35.235090] xfs filesystem being mounted at /mnt1 supports timestamps until 2038-01-19 (0x7fffffff)
> ~# cd /mnt1/
> ~# sha256sum -c checksums 
> file-1.img: OK
> file-2.img: OK
> file-3.img: OK
> file-4.img: OK
> file-5.img: OK
> file-6.img: OK
> file-7.img: OK
> file-8.img: OK
> file-9.img: OK
> file-10.img: OK
> 
> So thanks for this nice portability which this series offers :) 

Yessss this is awesome to see this coming together after many years!

--D

> -ritesh
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists