xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Count journal size in test 289

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Count journal size in test 289
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:24:23 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130320104744.GA13294@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1363710082-11371-1-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <51489ACE.1010205@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20130320104744.GA13294@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
On 3/20/13 5:47 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 19-03-13 12:05:18, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 3/19/13 11:21 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> Test 289 ignored the fact that historically journal is not accounted as
>>> fs overhead. For larger filesystems it is hidden in 1% tolerance but for
>>> filesystems smaller than 12G the test fails. So make the counting
>>> precise to work everywhere.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> 0875a2b448fcaba67010850cf9649293a5ef653d ext4: include journal blocks in df 
>> overhead calcs
>   Bah, I missed that. But ext3 definitely needs this (and I'm not sure we
> want to change that behavior after so many years - it's mostly cosmetic
> anyway so the possibility of breaking some userspace seems a bad tradeoff).

Sure, that's fine.  Ext4 has munged df reporting a few times recently
anyway, so figured it was worth sneaking in something to make it more
accurate.

>> changed this again, right - so will this change work in both cases?
>   No, it will now fail for small ext4 filesystems instead of small ext3
> filesystems :).  So we will count journal blocks only for ext3, ok?

Sounds like a plan.

>> Also: is using "Journal length: " any simpler?
>   It would be, but older versions of dumpe2fs don't have that (it happened
> somewhere between 1.41.9 and 1.41.11) so I figured I will use a more
> generic approach (too lazy to fix my test machine ;).

Makes sense :)

Thanks,
-Eric

>                                                               Honza
> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  289           |   12 ++++++++----
>>>  common.filter |   15 +++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/289 b/289
>>> index b057c20..9bba144 100755
>>> --- a/289
>>> +++ b/289
>>> @@ -59,10 +59,14 @@ TOTAL_BLOCKS=`dumpe2fs -h $SCRATCH_DEV 2>/dev/null \
>>>  FREE_BLOCKS=`dumpe2fs -h $SCRATCH_DEV 2>/dev/null \
>>>             | awk '/Free blocks:/{print $3}'`
>>>  
>>> -# nb: kernels today don't count journal blocks  as overhead, but should.
>>> -# For most filesystems this will still be within tolerance.
>>> -# Overhead is all the blocks (already) used by the fs itself:
>>> -OVERHEAD=$(($TOTAL_BLOCKS-$FREE_BLOCKS))
>>> +JOURNAL_SIZE=`dumpe2fs -h $SCRATCH_DEV 2>/dev/null \
>>> +           | awk '/Journal size:/{print $3}' | _filter_size_to_bytes`
>>> +BLOCK_SIZE=`dumpe2fs -h $SCRATCH_DEV 2>/dev/null \
>>> +           | awk '/Block size:/{print $3}'`
>>> +JOURNAL_BLOCKS=$(($JOURNAL_SIZE/$BLOCK_SIZE))
>>> +
>>> +# kernels today don't count journal blocks as overhead, but should.
>>> +OVERHEAD=$(($TOTAL_BLOCKS-$FREE_BLOCKS-$JOURNAL_BLOCKS))
>>>  
>>>  #  bsddf|minixdf
>>>  #         Set the behaviour  for  the  statfs  system  call.  The  minixdf
>>> diff --git a/common.filter b/common.filter
>>> index f0f6076..fcd7589 100644
>>> --- a/common.filter
>>> +++ b/common.filter
>>> @@ -229,5 +229,20 @@ _filter_spaces()
>>>         sed -e 's/ [ ]*/ /g'
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +# Convert string read from stdin like 128K to bytes and print it to stdout
>>> +_filter_size_to_bytes()
>>> +{
>>> +   read size
>>> +   suffix=${size:${#size}-1}
>>> +   mul=1
>>> +   case $suffix in
>>> +           K) mul=1024 ;;
>>> +           M) mul=$((1024*1024)) ;;
>>> +           G) mul=$((1024*1024*1024)) ;;
>>> +           T) mul=$((1024*1024*1024*1024)) ;;
>>> +   esac
>>> +   echo $((${size:0:${#size}-1}*$mul))
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  # make sure this script returns success
>>>  /bin/true
>>>
>>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>