xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 091, 240, 268 fix for xfs on 4k sector hard drive

To: Dwight Engen <dwight.engen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: 091, 240, 268 fix for xfs on 4k sector hard drive
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:23:19 -0500
Cc: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130725102754.7c564098@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20130724143208.34b77534@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130724235739.GR19986@dastard> <51F0AB56.7020705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130725102754.7c564098@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
On 7/25/13 9:27 AM, Dwight Engen wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 23:36:38 -0500
> Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/24/2013 6:57 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 02:32:08PM -0400, Dwight Engen wrote:
>>>> Tests 091,240, and 268 are failing on my 4k sector hard disk. The
>>>> dio writes from fsx and aiodio_sparse2 are failing on xfs with
>>>> EINVAL which is returned from the check at the top of
>>>> xfs_file_dio_aio_write().
>>>>
>>>> The fix is to use blockdev -getpbsz to get the physical sector
>>>> size instead of the logical sector size. This makes 091 and 268
>>>> work. 240 will not run on a 4k drive since fs block size == device
>>>> block size. Tested against xfs,ext4, and btrfs.
>>>
>>> What's the logical sector size of the drive? If it's 4k, then
>>> blockdev --getss should be returning 4k. If it's not, then either
>>> the drive is reporting that it supports 512 bytes sectors when it
>>> doesn't (i.e. the drive is broken) or blockdev is returning the
>>> wrong information (i.e. blockdev is broken)....
> 
> # blockdev --getss /dev/sda
> 512
> # blockdev --getpbsz /dev/sda 
> 4096
> 
> So it looks like blockdev is reporting the correct values.
> 
>>> What does mkfs.xfs output on that device?
> 
> mkfs.xfs -f /dev/sda1
> meta-data=/dev/sda1              isize=256    agcount=8, agsize=262144
> blks =                       sectsz=4096  attr=2, projid32bit=0
> data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=2097152, imaxpct=25
>          =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks
> naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0
> log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=2560, version=2
>          =                       sectsz=4096  sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1
> realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0
> 
> So mkfs.xfs is reporting sectsz=4096. I added a printf into mkfs.xfs
> right after it is setting sectorsize = ft.psectorsize and saw:
> 
> sectorsize 4096 ft.psectorsize 4096 ft.lsectorsize 512

There was a change to mkfs to make the sectorsize == physical sector size:

commit 287d168b550857ce40e04b5f618d7eb91b87022f
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Thu Mar 1 22:46:35 2012 -0600

    mkfs.xfs: properly handle physical sector size
    
    This splits the fs_topology structure "sectorsize" into
    logical & physical, and gets both via blkid_get_topology().
    
    This primarily allows us to default to using the physical
    sectorsize for mkfs's "sector size" value, the fundamental
    size of any IOs the filesystem will perform.

and the rationale was:

                /*
                 * Unless specified manually on the command line use the
+                * advertised sector size of the device.  We use the physical
+                * sector size unless the requested block size is smaller
+                * than that, then we can use logical, but warn about the
+                * inefficiency.

So, I hadn't thought about this, but I guess using physical sector size
during mkfs trickles all the way to the DIO tests, and rejects anything
smaller, including otherwise-acceptable smaller logical sector sizes :/

(You can probably mkfs w/ an explicit 512 sector size, and confirm that
512-byte DIOs work again)

bleah, perhaps that was a mistake - or perhaps we need to fix kernelspace
to prefer physical-size IOs, but allow logical-size if a DIO requests it.

>>>>  rm -f $TEST_DIR/aiodio_sparse
>>>>  
>>>> -logical_block_size=`blockdev --getss $TEST_DEV`
>>>> +logical_block_size=`blockdev --getpbsz $TEST_DEV`
>>>
>>> FWIW, that doesn't make much sense - putting the physical block size
>>> into a variable named "logical_block_size".....
> 
> Yeah, that name wouldn't make much sense with this change. Its actually
> being used to compare to the fs block size and then its passed into
> aiodio_sparse2 as offset. 091 and 268 use the more generic name bsize,
> should I can change it to that?

Well, that was put there with:

commit 2dbd21dc152d89715263990c881025f17c7b632e
Author: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Fri Feb 11 15:20:02 2011 -0500

    240: only run when the file system block size is larger than the disk 
sector size
    
    This test really wants to test partial file-system block I/Os.  Thus, if
    the device has a 4K sector size, and the file system has a 4K block
    size, there's really no point in running the test.  In the attached
    patch, I check that the fs block size is larger than the device's
    logical block size, which should cover a 4k device block size with a 16k
    fs block size.
    
    I verified that the patched test does not run on my 4k sector device
    with a 4k file system.  I also verified that it continues to run on a
    512 byte logical sector device with a 4k file system block size.
    
    Signed-off-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>

...

+# This test need only be run in the case where the logical block size
+# of the device can be smaller than the file system block size.



>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dave.
>>
>> AFAIK there are no native 4K sector drives on the market yet.  All of
>> the currently shipping models with physical 4K sectors are "Advanced
>> Format" drives.  The Advanced Format standard specifies 4K physical
>> sectors -internal- to the drive, but with traditional 512B LBA
>> addressing.
>>
>> Dwight, what disk drive is this in question?  Make/model?
> 
> Yep its an Advanced Format drive, some relevant lines from dmesg:
> 
> ata1.00: ATA-8: HITACHI HTS725050A7E630, GH2ZB390, max UDMA/133
> scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      HITACHI HTS72505 GH2Z PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 976773168 512-byte logical blocks: (500 GB/465 GiB)
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 4096-byte physical blocks
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

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