shared/011: run on all file system that support cgroup writeback
PATCH 1/1 shared/011: run on all file system that support cgroup writeback
Run the cgroup writeback test on xfs, for which I've just posted a patch to support cgroup writeback as well as ext2 and f2fs, which have supported cgroup writeback for a while now.
--- tests/shared/011 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
tests/shared/011 +1 -1
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ rm -f $seqres.full # real QA test starts here # Modify as appropriate. -_supported_fs ext4 btrfs +_supported_fs ext2 ext4 f2fs btrfs xfs _supported_os Linux _require_scratch _require_cgroup2 io
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Quoted 14 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Run the cgroup writeback test on xfs, for which I've just posted a patch to support cgroup writeback as well as ext2 and f2fs, which have supported cgroup writeback for a while now.
Signed-off-by Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>--- tests/shared/011 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)tests/shared/011 +0
-0
tests/shared/011 rm -f $seqres.full · line 42
Quoted 5 lines
tests/shared/011 +1
-1@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ rm -f $seqres.full # real QA test starts here # Modify as appropriate. -_supported_fs ext4 btrfs +_supported_fs ext2 ext4 f2fs btrfs xfs
Per my comments in another e-mail thread, given how many of the primary file systems support cgroup-aware writeback, maybe we should just remove the _supported_fs line and move this test to generic?
Whether we like it or not, there are more and more userspace tools which assume that cgroup-aware writeback is a thing.
Alternatively, maybe we should have some standardized way so the kernel can signal whether or not a particular mounted file system supports cgroup-aware writeback?
- Ted
Quoted 25 lines · Theodore Ts'o
Quoted 14 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Run the cgroup writeback test on xfs, for which I've just posted a patch to support cgroup writeback as well as ext2 and f2fs, which have supported cgroup writeback for a while now.
Signed-off-by Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>--- tests/shared/011 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)tests/shared/011 +0
-0tests/shared/011 rm -f $seqres.full · line 42
Quoted 5 lines
tests/shared/011 +1
-1@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ rm -f $seqres.full # real QA test starts here # Modify as appropriate. -_supported_fs ext4 btrfs +_supported_fs ext2 ext4 f2fs btrfs xfsPer my comments in another e-mail thread, given how many of the primary file systems support cgroup-aware writeback, maybe we should just remove the
_supported_fsline and move this test to generic?
Quoted 6 lines
Whether we like it or not, there are more and more userspace tools which assume that cgroup-aware writeback is a thing.
Alternatively, maybe we should have some standardized way so the kernel can signal whether or not a particular mounted file system supports cgroup-aware writeback?
I prefer this second option because I'd rather the test suite do the work to figure out if cgroup aware writeback is enabled and therefore worth testing rather than making everyone's QA department to add another conditional known-failure entry for when they want to run new fstests on some old LTS/distro kernel.
--D
Quoted 1 line
- Ted
Quoted 33 lines · Darrick J. Wong
Quoted 25 lines · Theodore Ts'o
Quoted 14 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Run the cgroup writeback test on xfs, for which I've just posted a patch to support cgroup writeback as well as ext2 and f2fs, which have supported cgroup writeback for a while now.
Signed-off-by Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>--- tests/shared/011 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)tests/shared/011 +0
-0tests/shared/011 rm -f $seqres.full · line 42
Quoted 5 lines
tests/shared/011 +1
-1@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ rm -f $seqres.full # real QA test starts here # Modify as appropriate. -_supported_fs ext4 btrfs +_supported_fs ext2 ext4 f2fs btrfs xfsPer my comments in another e-mail thread, given how many of the primary file systems support cgroup-aware writeback, maybe we should just remove the
_supported_fsline and move this test to generic?Quoted 6 lines
Whether we like it or not, there are more and more userspace tools which assume that cgroup-aware writeback is a thing.
Alternatively, maybe we should have some standardized way so the kernel can signal whether or not a particular mounted file system supports cgroup-aware writeback?
Quoted 5 lines
I prefer this second option because I'd rather the test suite do the work to figure out if cgroup aware writeback is enabled and therefore worth testing rather than making everyone's QA department to add another conditional known-failure entry for when they want to run new fstests on some old LTS/distro kernel.
Agreed, a standard way to query cgroup-aware writeback support status would be the best.
Thanks,
Eryu
Quoted 4 lines
--D
Quoted 1 line
- Ted
Quoted 10 lines · Theodore Ts'o
Per my comments in another e-mail thread, given how many of the primary file systems support cgroup-aware writeback, maybe we should just remove the
_supported_fsline and move this test to generic?Whether we like it or not, there are more and more userspace tools which assume that cgroup-aware writeback is a thing.
Alternatively, maybe we should have some standardized way so the kernel can signal whether or not a particular mounted file system supports cgroup-aware writeback?
I'm fine with moving the patch to generic as said. I'm fine saying we assume cgroup wb support for block device based file systems, xfs was the only major one missing, and the support is pretty trivial as well.