On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:36:59AM +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote: > On 08/11, Dave Chinner wrote: > >On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:16:12AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> I need to see these events: > >> > >> xfs_file* > >> xfs_iomap* > >> xfs_get_block* > >> > >> For both kernels. An example trace from 4.8-rc1 running the command > >> `xfs_io -f -c 'pwrite 0 512k -b 128k' /mnt/scratch/fooey doing an > >> overwrite and extend of the existing file ends up looking like: > >> > >> $ sudo trace-cmd start -e xfs_iomap\* -e xfs_file\* -e xfs_get_blocks\* > >> $ sudo cat /sys/kernel/tracing/trace_pipe > >> <...>-2946 [001] .... 253971.750304: xfs_file_ioctl: dev > >> 253:32 ino 0x84 > >> xfs_io-2946 [001] .... 253971.750938: xfs_file_buffered_write: > >> dev 253:32 ino 0x84 size 0x40000 offset 0x0 count 0x20000 > >> xfs_io-2946 [001] .... 253971.750961: xfs_iomap_found: dev > >> 253:32 ino 0x84 size 0x40000 offset 0x0 count 131072 type invalid startoff > >> 0x0 startblock 24 blockcount 0x60 > >> xfs_io-2946 [001] .... 253971.751114: xfs_file_buffered_write: > >> dev 253:32 ino 0x84 size 0x40000 offset 0x20000 count 0x20000 > >> xfs_io-2946 [001] .... 253971.751128: xfs_iomap_found: dev > >> 253:32 ino 0x84 size 0x40000 offset 0x20000 count 131072 type invalid > >> startoff 0x0 startblock 24 blockcount 0x60 > >> xfs_io-2946 [001] .... 253971.751234: xfs_file_buffered_write: > >> dev 253:32 ino 0x84 size 0x40000 offset 0x40000 count 0x20000 > >> xfs_io-2946 [001] .... 253971.751236: xfs_iomap_found: dev > >> 253:32 ino 0x84 size 0x40000 offset 0x40000 count 131072 type invalid > >> startoff 0x0 startblock 24 blockcount 0x60 > >> xfs_io-2946 [001] .... 253971.751381: xfs_file_buffered_write: > >> dev 253:32 ino 0x84 size 0x40000 offset 0x60000 count 0x20000 > >> xfs_io-2946 [001] .... 253971.751415: xfs_iomap_prealloc_size: > >> dev 253:32 ino 0x84 prealloc blocks 128 shift 0 m_writeio_blocks 16 > >> xfs_io-2946 [001] .... 253971.751425: xfs_iomap_alloc: dev > >> 253:32 ino 0x84 size 0x40000 offset 0x60000 count 131072 type invalid > >> startoff 0x60 startblock -1 blockcount 0x90 > >> > >> That's the output I need for the complete test - you'll need to use > >> a better recording mechanism that this (e.g. trace-cmd record, > >> trace-cmd report) because it will generate a lot of events. Compress > >> the two report files (they'll be large) and send them to me offlist. > > > >Can you also send me the output of xfs_info on the filesystem you > >are testing? > > Hi, Dave > > Here is the xfs_info output: > > # xfs_info /fs/ram0/ > meta-data=/dev/ram0 isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=3145728 blks > = sectsz=4096 attr=2, projid32bit=1 > = crc=0 finobt=0 > data = bsize=4096 blocks=12582912, imaxpct=25 > = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=0 > log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=6144, version=2 > = sectsz=4096 sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1 > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
OK, nothing unusual there. One thing that I did just think of - how close to ENOSPC does this test get? i.e. are we hitting the "we're almost out of free space" slow paths on this test? Cheers, dave. > > Thanks, > Xiaolong > > > >Cheers, > > > >Dave. > >-- > >Dave Chinner > >da...@fromorbit.com > >_______________________________________________ > >LKP mailing list > >l...@lists.01.org > >https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/lkp > -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com
