lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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@pankajraghav.com> writes:
    >
    > > From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.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 :)

    That is indeed nice. Thanks a lot for testing this Ritesh. :)

    >
    > -ritesh
    >

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2024-05-27 18:08    [W:4.452 / U:0.188 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site