Test nfs and its underlying fs, make sure file size as expected
after writting a file, and the speculative allocation space can
be shrunken.
Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <[email protected]>
---
Last year I sent a patch to fstests@, but it sometimes fails on the upstream
kernel that year:
https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/Y3vTbHqT64gsQ573@magnolia/
And we didn't get a proper reason for that, so that patch was blocked. Now
I found this case test passed on current upstream linux [1] (after loop
running it a whole night). So I think it's time to rebase and re-send this
patch to get review.
Thanks,
Zorro
[1]
FSTYP -- nfs
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 xxxx 6.5.0-rc4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Aug 1 15:32:55 EDT 2023
MKFS_OPTIONS -- xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o vers=4.2 -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server /mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-client
nfs/002 4s ... 4s
Ran: nfs/002
Passed all 1 tests
tests/nfs/002 | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tests/nfs/002.out | 2 ++
2 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
create mode 100755 tests/nfs/002
create mode 100644 tests/nfs/002.out
diff --git a/tests/nfs/002 b/tests/nfs/002
new file mode 100755
index 00000000..b4b6554c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/nfs/002
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+#! /bin/bash
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+# Copyright (c) 2023 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
+#
+# FS QA Test 002
+#
+# Make sure nfs gets expected file size after writting a big sized file. It's
+# not only testing nfs, test its underlying fs too. For example a known old bug
+# on xfs (underlying fs) caused nfs get larger file size (e.g. 16M) after
+# writting 10M data to a file. It's fixed by a series of patches around
+# 579b62faa5fb16 ("xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes")
+#
+. ./common/preamble
+_begin_fstest auto quick rw
+
+# real QA test starts here
+_supported_fs nfs
+# Need a series of patches related with this patch
+_fixed_by_kernel_commit 579b62faa5fb16 \
+ "xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes"
+_require_test
+
+localfile=$TEST_DIR/testfile.$seq
+rm -rf $localfile
+
+$XFS_IO_PROG -f -t -c "pwrite 0 10m" -c "fsync" $localfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1
+block_size=`stat -c '%B' $localfile`
+iblocks_expected=$((10 * 1024 * 1024 / $block_size))
+# Try several times for the speculative allocated file size can be shrunken
+res=1
+for ((i=0; i<10; i++));do
+ iblocks_real=`stat -c '%b' $localfile`
+ if [ "$iblocks_expected" = "$iblocks_real" ];then
+ res=0
+ break
+ fi
+ sleep 10
+done
+if [ $res -ne 0 ];then
+ echo "Write $iblocks_expected blocks, but get $iblocks_real blocks"
+fi
+
+echo "Silence is golden"
+# success, all done
+status=0
+exit
diff --git a/tests/nfs/002.out b/tests/nfs/002.out
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..61705c7c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/nfs/002.out
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+QA output created by 002
+Silence is golden
--
2.40.1
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:46:46PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> Test nfs and its underlying fs, make sure file size as expected
> after writting a file, and the speculative allocation space can
> be shrunken.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> Last year I sent a patch to fstests@, but it sometimes fails on the upstream
> kernel that year:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/Y3vTbHqT64gsQ573@magnolia/
>
> And we didn't get a proper reason for that, so that patch was blocked. Now
> I found this case test passed on current upstream linux [1] (after loop
> running it a whole night). So I think it's time to rebase and re-send this
> patch to get review.
>
> Thanks,
> Zorro
>
> [1]
> FSTYP -- nfs
> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 xxxx 6.5.0-rc4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Aug 1 15:32:55 EDT 2023
> MKFS_OPTIONS -- xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o vers=4.2 -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server /mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-client
>
> nfs/002 4s ... 4s
> Ran: nfs/002
> Passed all 1 tests
>
> tests/nfs/002 | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tests/nfs/002.out | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
> create mode 100755 tests/nfs/002
> create mode 100644 tests/nfs/002.out
>
> diff --git a/tests/nfs/002 b/tests/nfs/002
> new file mode 100755
> index 00000000..b4b6554c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/nfs/002
> @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
> +#! /bin/bash
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +# Copyright (c) 2023 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> +#
> +# FS QA Test 002
> +#
> +# Make sure nfs gets expected file size after writting a big sized file. It's
> +# not only testing nfs, test its underlying fs too. For example a known old bug
> +# on xfs (underlying fs) caused nfs get larger file size (e.g. 16M) after
> +# writting 10M data to a file. It's fixed by a series of patches around
> +# 579b62faa5fb16 ("xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes")
Er... has this been banging around in the trunk for 11 years? ;)
> +#
> +. ./common/preamble
> +_begin_fstest auto quick rw
> +
> +# real QA test starts here
> +_supported_fs nfs
> +# Need a series of patches related with this patch
> +_fixed_by_kernel_commit 579b62faa5fb16 \
> + "xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes"
> +_require_test
> +
> +localfile=$TEST_DIR/testfile.$seq
> +rm -rf $localfile
> +
> +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -t -c "pwrite 0 10m" -c "fsync" $localfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1
> +block_size=`stat -c '%B' $localfile`
> +iblocks_expected=$((10 * 1024 * 1024 / $block_size))
> +# Try several times for the speculative allocated file size can be shrunken
> +res=1
> +for ((i=0; i<10; i++));do
> + iblocks_real=`stat -c '%b' $localfile`
> + if [ "$iblocks_expected" = "$iblocks_real" ];then
What happens if real < expected? Should there be some sort of bail out
for unexpected things like that?
> + res=0
> + break
> + fi
> + sleep 10
> +done
Though I guess the runtime is capped at ~100s so maybe it doesn't
matter practically.
(What happens if xfs blockgc only runs every 5 minutes?)
--D
> +if [ $res -ne 0 ];then
> + echo "Write $iblocks_expected blocks, but get $iblocks_real blocks"
> +fi
> +
> +echo "Silence is golden"
> +# success, all done
> +status=0
> +exit
> diff --git a/tests/nfs/002.out b/tests/nfs/002.out
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..61705c7c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/nfs/002.out
> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> +QA output created by 002
> +Silence is golden
> --
> 2.40.1
>
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 09:36:40AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:46:46PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > Test nfs and its underlying fs, make sure file size as expected
> > after writting a file, and the speculative allocation space can
> > be shrunken.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > Last year I sent a patch to fstests@, but it sometimes fails on the upstream
> > kernel that year:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/Y3vTbHqT64gsQ573@magnolia/
> >
> > And we didn't get a proper reason for that, so that patch was blocked. Now
> > I found this case test passed on current upstream linux [1] (after loop
> > running it a whole night). So I think it's time to rebase and re-send this
> > patch to get review.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zorro
> >
> > [1]
> > FSTYP -- nfs
> > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 xxxx 6.5.0-rc4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Aug 1 15:32:55 EDT 2023
> > MKFS_OPTIONS -- xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server
> > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o vers=4.2 -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server /mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-client
> >
> > nfs/002 4s ... 4s
> > Ran: nfs/002
> > Passed all 1 tests
> >
> > tests/nfs/002 | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > tests/nfs/002.out | 2 ++
> > 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100755 tests/nfs/002
> > create mode 100644 tests/nfs/002.out
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002 b/tests/nfs/002
> > new file mode 100755
> > index 00000000..b4b6554c
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/nfs/002
> > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
> > +#! /bin/bash
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +# Copyright (c) 2023 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> > +#
> > +# FS QA Test 002
> > +#
> > +# Make sure nfs gets expected file size after writting a big sized file. It's
> > +# not only testing nfs, test its underlying fs too. For example a known old bug
> > +# on xfs (underlying fs) caused nfs get larger file size (e.g. 16M) after
> > +# writting 10M data to a file. It's fixed by a series of patches around
> > +# 579b62faa5fb16 ("xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes")
>
> Er... has this been banging around in the trunk for 11 years? ;)
Yeah, that's an old enough test case :-D I tried to tidy our internal test cases,
felt this case can be in fstests.
>
> > +#
> > +. ./common/preamble
> > +_begin_fstest auto quick rw
> > +
> > +# real QA test starts here
> > +_supported_fs nfs
> > +# Need a series of patches related with this patch
> > +_fixed_by_kernel_commit 579b62faa5fb16 \
> > + "xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes"
> > +_require_test
> > +
> > +localfile=$TEST_DIR/testfile.$seq
> > +rm -rf $localfile
> > +
> > +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -t -c "pwrite 0 10m" -c "fsync" $localfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1
> > +block_size=`stat -c '%B' $localfile`
> > +iblocks_expected=$((10 * 1024 * 1024 / $block_size))
> > +# Try several times for the speculative allocated file size can be shrunken
> > +res=1
> > +for ((i=0; i<10; i++));do
> > + iblocks_real=`stat -c '%b' $localfile`
> > + if [ "$iblocks_expected" = "$iblocks_real" ];then
>
> What happens if real < expected? Should there be some sort of bail out
> for unexpected things like that?
Hmm... I never thought that. I saw the real >= expected, is there any
chance to get real < expected?
>
> > + res=0
> > + break
> > + fi
> > + sleep 10
> > +done
>
> Though I guess the runtime is capped at ~100s so maybe it doesn't
> matter practically.
Mostly the test done in several seconds in my testing:
FSTYP -- nfs
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 hp-dl360g9-06 6.5.0-rc4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Aug 1 15:32:55 EDT 2023
MKFS_OPTIONS -- hp-dl360g9-06.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o vers=4.2 -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 hp-dl360g9-06.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server /mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-client
nfs/002 5s ... 4s
Ran: nfs/002
Passed all 1 tests
>
> (What happens if xfs blockgc only runs every 5 minutes?)
How can can make that happen? If the 100s isn't enough, is there an upper
limit, or how to make an upper limit?
Thanks,
Zorro
>
> --D
>
> > +if [ $res -ne 0 ];then
> > + echo "Write $iblocks_expected blocks, but get $iblocks_real blocks"
> > +fi
> > +
> > +echo "Silence is golden"
> > +# success, all done
> > +status=0
> > +exit
> > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002.out b/tests/nfs/002.out
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000..61705c7c
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/nfs/002.out
> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > +QA output created by 002
> > +Silence is golden
> > --
> > 2.40.1
> >
>
On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 01:24:18AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 09:36:40AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:46:46PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > > Test nfs and its underlying fs, make sure file size as expected
> > > after writting a file, and the speculative allocation space can
> > > be shrunken.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Last year I sent a patch to fstests@, but it sometimes fails on the upstream
> > > kernel that year:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/Y3vTbHqT64gsQ573@magnolia/
> > >
> > > And we didn't get a proper reason for that, so that patch was blocked. Now
> > > I found this case test passed on current upstream linux [1] (after loop
> > > running it a whole night). So I think it's time to rebase and re-send this
> > > patch to get review.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Zorro
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > FSTYP -- nfs
> > > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 xxxx 6.5.0-rc4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Aug 1 15:32:55 EDT 2023
> > > MKFS_OPTIONS -- xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server
> > > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o vers=4.2 -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server /mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-client
> > >
> > > nfs/002 4s ... 4s
> > > Ran: nfs/002
> > > Passed all 1 tests
> > >
> > > tests/nfs/002 | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > tests/nfs/002.out | 2 ++
> > > 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100755 tests/nfs/002
> > > create mode 100644 tests/nfs/002.out
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002 b/tests/nfs/002
> > > new file mode 100755
> > > index 00000000..b4b6554c
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/tests/nfs/002
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
> > > +#! /bin/bash
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +# Copyright (c) 2023 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> > > +#
> > > +# FS QA Test 002
> > > +#
> > > +# Make sure nfs gets expected file size after writting a big sized file. It's
> > > +# not only testing nfs, test its underlying fs too. For example a known old bug
> > > +# on xfs (underlying fs) caused nfs get larger file size (e.g. 16M) after
> > > +# writting 10M data to a file. It's fixed by a series of patches around
> > > +# 579b62faa5fb16 ("xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes")
> >
> > Er... has this been banging around in the trunk for 11 years? ;)
>
> Yeah, that's an old enough test case :-D I tried to tidy our internal test cases,
> felt this case can be in fstests.
>
> >
> > > +#
> > > +. ./common/preamble
> > > +_begin_fstest auto quick rw
> > > +
> > > +# real QA test starts here
> > > +_supported_fs nfs
> > > +# Need a series of patches related with this patch
> > > +_fixed_by_kernel_commit 579b62faa5fb16 \
> > > + "xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes"
> > > +_require_test
> > > +
> > > +localfile=$TEST_DIR/testfile.$seq
> > > +rm -rf $localfile
> > > +
> > > +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -t -c "pwrite 0 10m" -c "fsync" $localfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1
> > > +block_size=`stat -c '%B' $localfile`
> > > +iblocks_expected=$((10 * 1024 * 1024 / $block_size))
> > > +# Try several times for the speculative allocated file size can be shrunken
> > > +res=1
> > > +for ((i=0; i<10; i++));do
> > > + iblocks_real=`stat -c '%b' $localfile`
> > > + if [ "$iblocks_expected" = "$iblocks_real" ];then
> >
> > What happens if real < expected? Should there be some sort of bail out
> > for unexpected things like that?
>
> Hmm... I never thought that. I saw the real >= expected, is there any
> chance to get real < expected?
<shrug> Suppose the NFS server is running on top of a filesystem that
supports compression and i_blocks as returned by stat reflects that?
--D
> >
> > > + res=0
> > > + break
> > > + fi
> > > + sleep 10
> > > +done
> >
> > Though I guess the runtime is capped at ~100s so maybe it doesn't
> > matter practically.
>
> Mostly the test done in several seconds in my testing:
>
> FSTYP -- nfs
> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 hp-dl360g9-06 6.5.0-rc4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Aug 1 15:32:55 EDT 2023
> MKFS_OPTIONS -- hp-dl360g9-06.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o vers=4.2 -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 hp-dl360g9-06.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server /mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-client
>
> nfs/002 5s ... 4s
> Ran: nfs/002
> Passed all 1 tests
Doesn't xfs remove the speculative preallocations every time a write fd
is closed?
Yes, it does do that:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/155259894034.30230.7188877605950498518.stgit@magnolia/
IOWs, how is this test actually checking the behavior of background
blockgc clearing out speculative preallocations?
> > (What happens if xfs blockgc only runs every 5 minutes?)
>
> How can can make that happen? If the 100s isn't enough, is there an upper
> limit, or how to make an upper limit?
There's no way to tell over NFS...
--D
>
> Thanks,
> Zorro
>
> >
> > --D
> >
> > > +if [ $res -ne 0 ];then
> > > + echo "Write $iblocks_expected blocks, but get $iblocks_real blocks"
> > > +fi
> > > +
> > > +echo "Silence is golden"
> > > +# success, all done
> > > +status=0
> > > +exit
> > > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002.out b/tests/nfs/002.out
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 00000000..61705c7c
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/tests/nfs/002.out
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > > +QA output created by 002
> > > +Silence is golden
> > > --
> > > 2.40.1
> > >
> >
>
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 10:43:26AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 01:24:18AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 09:36:40AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:46:46PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > > > Test nfs and its underlying fs, make sure file size as expected
> > > > after writting a file, and the speculative allocation space can
> > > > be shrunken.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Last year I sent a patch to fstests@, but it sometimes fails on the upstream
> > > > kernel that year:
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/Y3vTbHqT64gsQ573@magnolia/
> > > >
> > > > And we didn't get a proper reason for that, so that patch was blocked. Now
> > > > I found this case test passed on current upstream linux [1] (after loop
> > > > running it a whole night). So I think it's time to rebase and re-send this
> > > > patch to get review.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Zorro
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > FSTYP -- nfs
> > > > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 xxxx 6.5.0-rc4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Aug 1 15:32:55 EDT 2023
> > > > MKFS_OPTIONS -- xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server
> > > > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o vers=4.2 -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server /mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-client
> > > >
> > > > nfs/002 4s ... 4s
> > > > Ran: nfs/002
> > > > Passed all 1 tests
> > > >
> > > > tests/nfs/002 | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > tests/nfs/002.out | 2 ++
> > > > 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100755 tests/nfs/002
> > > > create mode 100644 tests/nfs/002.out
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002 b/tests/nfs/002
> > > > new file mode 100755
> > > > index 00000000..b4b6554c
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/tests/nfs/002
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
> > > > +#! /bin/bash
> > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > +# Copyright (c) 2023 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> > > > +#
> > > > +# FS QA Test 002
> > > > +#
> > > > +# Make sure nfs gets expected file size after writting a big sized file. It's
> > > > +# not only testing nfs, test its underlying fs too. For example a known old bug
> > > > +# on xfs (underlying fs) caused nfs get larger file size (e.g. 16M) after
> > > > +# writting 10M data to a file. It's fixed by a series of patches around
> > > > +# 579b62faa5fb16 ("xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes")
> > >
> > > Er... has this been banging around in the trunk for 11 years? ;)
> >
> > Yeah, that's an old enough test case :-D I tried to tidy our internal test cases,
> > felt this case can be in fstests.
> >
> > >
> > > > +#
> > > > +. ./common/preamble
> > > > +_begin_fstest auto quick rw
> > > > +
> > > > +# real QA test starts here
> > > > +_supported_fs nfs
> > > > +# Need a series of patches related with this patch
> > > > +_fixed_by_kernel_commit 579b62faa5fb16 \
> > > > + "xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes"
> > > > +_require_test
> > > > +
> > > > +localfile=$TEST_DIR/testfile.$seq
> > > > +rm -rf $localfile
> > > > +
> > > > +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -t -c "pwrite 0 10m" -c "fsync" $localfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1
> > > > +block_size=`stat -c '%B' $localfile`
> > > > +iblocks_expected=$((10 * 1024 * 1024 / $block_size))
> > > > +# Try several times for the speculative allocated file size can be shrunken
> > > > +res=1
> > > > +for ((i=0; i<10; i++));do
> > > > + iblocks_real=`stat -c '%b' $localfile`
> > > > + if [ "$iblocks_expected" = "$iblocks_real" ];then
> > >
> > > What happens if real < expected? Should there be some sort of bail out
> > > for unexpected things like that?
> >
> > Hmm... I never thought that. I saw the real >= expected, is there any
> > chance to get real < expected?
>
> <shrug> Suppose the NFS server is running on top of a filesystem that
> supports compression and i_blocks as returned by stat reflects that?
>
> --D
>
> > >
> > > > + res=0
> > > > + break
> > > > + fi
> > > > + sleep 10
> > > > +done
> > >
> > > Though I guess the runtime is capped at ~100s so maybe it doesn't
> > > matter practically.
> >
> > Mostly the test done in several seconds in my testing:
> >
> > FSTYP -- nfs
> > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 hp-dl360g9-06 6.5.0-rc4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Aug 1 15:32:55 EDT 2023
> > MKFS_OPTIONS -- hp-dl360g9-06.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server
> > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o vers=4.2 -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 hp-dl360g9-06.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server /mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-client
> >
> > nfs/002 5s ... 4s
> > Ran: nfs/002
> > Passed all 1 tests
>
> Doesn't xfs remove the speculative preallocations every time a write fd
> is closed?
>
> Yes, it does do that:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/155259894034.30230.7188877605950498518.stgit@magnolia/
>
> IOWs, how is this test actually checking the behavior of background
> blockgc clearing out speculative preallocations?
OK, looks like this case is invalid. I'll keep it :)
Thanks,
Zorro
>
> > > (What happens if xfs blockgc only runs every 5 minutes?)
> >
> > How can can make that happen? If the 100s isn't enough, is there an upper
> > limit, or how to make an upper limit?
>
> There's no way to tell over NFS...
>
> --D
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zorro
> >
> > >
> > > --D
> > >
> > > > +if [ $res -ne 0 ];then
> > > > + echo "Write $iblocks_expected blocks, but get $iblocks_real blocks"
> > > > +fi
> > > > +
> > > > +echo "Silence is golden"
> > > > +# success, all done
> > > > +status=0
> > > > +exit
> > > > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002.out b/tests/nfs/002.out
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 00000000..61705c7c
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/tests/nfs/002.out
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > > > +QA output created by 002
> > > > +Silence is golden
> > > > --
> > > > 2.40.1
> > > >
> > >
> >
>