On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 09:51:24AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 22.12.2017 00:42, Liu Bo wrote:
> > This test case simulates the racy situation of buffered write vs dio
> > read, and see if btrfs_get_extent() would return -EEXIST.
>
> Isn't mixing dio/buffered IO on the same file (range?) considered
> dangerous in any case?
They are, but it is sometimes the way how applications work.
thanks,
-liubo
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li....@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c | 73
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c
> > b/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c
> > index 0407396..2adf55f 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c
> > @@ -181,6 +181,78 @@ static void test_case_2(struct extent_map_tree
> > *em_tree)
> > free_extent_map_tree(em_tree);
> > }
> >
> > +static void __test_case_3(struct extent_map_tree *em_tree, u64 start)
> > +{
> > + struct extent_map *em;
> > + u64 len = SZ_4K;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + em = alloc_extent_map();
> > + if (!em)
> > + /* Skip this test on error. */
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /* Add [4K, 8K) */
> > + em->start = SZ_4K;
> > + em->len = SZ_4K;
> > + em->block_start = SZ_4K;
> > + em->block_len = SZ_4K;
> > + ret = add_extent_mapping(em_tree, em, 0);
> > + ASSERT(ret == 0);
> > + free_extent_map(em);
> > +
> > + em = alloc_extent_map();
> > + if (!em)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + /* Add [0, 16K) */
> > + em->start = 0;
> > + em->len = SZ_16K;
> > + em->block_start = 0;
> > + em->block_len = SZ_16K;
> > + ret = btrfs_add_extent_mapping(em_tree, &em, start, len);
> > + if (ret)
> > + test_msg("case3 [0x%llx 0x%llx): ret %d\n",
> > + start, start + len, ret);
> > + /*
> > + * Since bytes within em are contiguous, em->block_start is identical to
> > + * em->start.
> > + */
> > + if (em &&
> > + (start < em->start || start + len > extent_map_end(em) ||
> > + em->start != em->block_start || em->len != em->block_len))
> > + test_msg("case3 [0x%llx 0x%llx): ret %d em (start 0x%llx len
> > 0x%llx block_start 0x%llx block_len 0x%llx)\n",
> > + start, start + len, ret, em->start, em->len,
> > + em->block_start, em->block_len);
> > + free_extent_map(em);
> > +out:
> > + /* free memory */
> > + free_extent_map_tree(em_tree);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Test scenario:
> > + *
> > + * Suppose that no extent map has been loaded into memory yet.
> > + * There is a file extent [0, 16K), two jobs are running concurrently
> > + * against it, t1 is buffered writing to [4K, 8K) and t2 is doing dio
> > + * read from [0, 4K) or [8K, 12K) or [12K, 16K).
> > + *
> > + * t1 goes ahead of t2 and adds em [4K, 8K) into tree.
> > + *
> > + * t1 t2
> > + * cow_file_range() btrfs_get_extent()
> > + * -> lookup_extent_mapping()
> > + * -> add_extent_mapping()
> > + * -> add_extent_mapping()
> > + */
> > +static void test_case_3(struct extent_map_tree *em_tree)
> > +{
> > + __test_case_3(em_tree, 0);
> > + __test_case_3(em_tree, SZ_8K);
> > + __test_case_3(em_tree, (12 * 1024ULL));
> > +}
> > +
> > int btrfs_test_extent_map()
> > {
> > struct extent_map_tree *em_tree;
> > @@ -196,6 +268,7 @@ int btrfs_test_extent_map()
> >
> > test_case_1(em_tree);
> > test_case_2(em_tree);
> > + test_case_3(em_tree);
> >
> > kfree(em_tree);
> > return 0;
> >
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
