From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout09.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout09.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.224]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DBB42D7818; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 06:27:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.224 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762928853; cv=none; b=md3Om1iw2v6doYdbhQ50V+D4nijiKU1fcGkUiQhQsPfs0P2PF/AOGMbpVGsMjrxlec3r8egARwS5FXLvIjDxoCx1ABsncNbiWa1BBhtCpO/kimRycdDWfluc398Q7yMRLsAXaXsgCcTP/cjJcQYQpF1RSBHOqNSybSqOegk0x38= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762928853; c=relaxed/simple; bh=s9eFlodwgeafLMC+k9IpaX3BxvXzU+E4w7LZ82PAoyg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Q8R9oVTClDSeFJ/mKoh8FMfYGH+CfGhxWxVkbmgj7MIJp4Pvzox+mnaXHAlROq31kFzAL8CpRh7clDCEHFziFXFDLgaN2/KrsmpjoqCkVvwxtn5kZI+DmwgsSp0BgOW4CPbbStgt7lK6m6lWmOwpKVkENXJ6trhzLj80T7aRi2k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=NlA8x3YU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.224 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="NlA8x3YU" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=mj7+88DMlG12jwejTb95ywDm+ONWgn6IUgAnm79v/0g=; b=NlA8x3YUr33sbz4J/iNTpGsfRCeL2xlJvO6Ti13J2tmcw8xo+xarCL2OcS7lqPgptPkHpgYEf E7+TTPOLvQ4iaGkXIcdGMhS/6rz6L1d9/eJI+58Gan+M6zKvUvyt1uQCiGV0UnFba3c2bc8KCSL hLO8h2clpzfxcJoCj2ULq3g= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.17]) by canpmsgout09.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4d5tgn4JMcz1cyNs; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 14:25:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf500013.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.188]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CFE01A0188; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 14:27:21 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.174.178.254) by dggpemf500013.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.188) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 14:27:20 +0800 Message-ID: <21efa577-a577-48ce-a82b-bce446539fba@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 14:27:19 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/24] ext4: enable block size larger than page size Content-Language: en-GB To: Theodore Ts'o CC: , , , , , , , , , , , Baokun Li , Baokun Li , "Darrick J. Wong" References: <20251112040220.GO2988753@mit.edu> From: Baokun Li In-Reply-To: <20251112040220.GO2988753@mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems100002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.206) To dggpemf500013.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.188) On 2025-11-12 12:02, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 10:19:06AM +0800, Baokun Li wrote: >> I am using a slightly older version of xfstests, and when running the >> 64k tests I also encountered similar failures. The cover letter stated >> "no Oops" for the 64k tests rather than "no new failures," meaning that >> some cases did fail, but no severe issues such as BUG_ON or softlock >> were observed. > Sorry, I misread your cover letter. It's good you are seeing similar > failures. Sorry, my description wasn’t clear enough. > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 10:49:19AM +0800, Baokun Li wrote: >> I checked the code of the swapon syscall in mm/swapfile.c, and currently >> the swapfile does not support LBS. Therefore, some failing test cases can >> be filtered out based on this. > Ah, OK. What's happening is with XFS the swap tests are being skipped > automatically if the swapon fails. From _require_scratch_swapfils: > > *) > if ! swapon "$SCRATCH_MNT/swap" >/dev/null 2>&1; then > _scratch_unmount > _notrun "swapfiles are not supported" > fi > ;; > > > But ext4 has different logic: > > # ext* has supported all variants of swap files since their > # introduction, so swapon should not fail. > > << famous last words >> 😄 > > case "$FSTYP" in > ext2|ext3|ext4) > if ! swapon "$SCRATCH_MNT/swap" >/dev/null 2>&1; then > if _check_s_dax "$SCRATCH_MNT/swap" 1 >/dev/null; then > _scratch_unmount > _notrun "swapfiles are not supported" > else > _scratch_unmount > _fail "swapon failed for $FSTYP" > fi > fi > ;; > > > I guess we could add logic to _require_scratch_swapfile in common/rc > to also _notrun if swapon fails and block size is greater that page > size. Or I might just add an exclusion in my test appliance runner > for now for all tests in group swap. Darrick’s reply in another thread has already made a similar change, so we can apply that patch first for testing. Cheers, Baokun