Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:22:46 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        fstests <fstests@vger.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/4] generic/468: Add another falloc test entry
Message-ID: <20220406115246.qzsexi24uvfu3mjp@riteshh-domain>
References: <cover.1648730443.git.ritesh.list@gmail.com>
 <75f4c780e8402a8f993cb987e85a31e4895f13de.1648730443.git.ritesh.list@gmail.com>
 <20220403232823.GS1609613@dread.disaster.area>
 <20220405110603.qqxyivpo4vzj5tlt@riteshh-domain>
 <Yky8DzTNiYovRbHb@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yky8DzTNiYovRbHb@mit.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On 22/04/05 06:00PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 04:36:03PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > > > +# blocksize and fact are used in the last case of the fsync/fdatasync test.
> > > > +# This is mainly trying to test recovery operation in case where the data
> > > > +# blocks written, exceeds the default flex group size (32768*4096*16) in ext4.
> > > > +blocks=32768
> > > > +blocksize=4096
> > >
> > > Block size can change based on mkfs parameters. You should extract
> > > this dynamically from the filesystem the test is being run on.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but we still have kept just 4096 because, anything bigger than that like
> > 65536 might require a bigger disk size itself to test. The overall size
> > requirement of the disk will then become ~36G (32768 * 65536 * 18)
> > Hence I went ahead with 4096 which is good enough for testing.
>
> What if the block size is *smaller*?  For example, I run an ext4/1k
> configuration (which is how I test block size > page size on x86 VM's :-).

For 1k bs, this test can still reproduce the problem. Because the given size
will easily overflow the required number of blocks in 1K case.

>
> > But sure, I will add a comment explaining why we have hardcoded it to 4096
> > so that others don't get confused. Larger than this size disk anyway doesn't get
> > tested much right?
>
> At $WORK we use a 100GB disk by default when running xfstests, and I
> wouldn't be surprised if theree are other folks who might use larger
> disk sizes.

Ohk, sure. Thanks for the info.

>
> Maybe test to see whether the scratch disk is too small for the given
> parameters and if so skip the test using _notrun?
>

Yes, I think I got the point. I will make the changes accordingly.

-ritesh