On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 08:12:00AM +0100, John Garry wrote: > On 02/08/2025 07:49, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 09:23:46AM +0100, John Garry wrote: > > > On 01/08/2025 07:41, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote: > > > > Got it, I think I can make this test work for ext4 only but then it might > > > > be more appropriate to run the fio tests directly on atomic blkdev and > > > > skip the FS, since we anyways want to focus on the storage stack. > > > > > > > testing on ext4 will prove also that the FS and iomap behave correctly in > > > that they generate a single bio per atomic write (as well as testing the > > > block stack and below). > > Okay, I think we are already testing those in the ext4/061 ext4/062 > > tests of this patchset. Just thought blkdev test might be useful to keep > > in generic. Do you see a value in that or shall I just drop the generic > > overlapping write tests? > > If you want to just test fio on the blkdev, then I think that is fine. > Indeed, maybe such tests are useful in blktests also. Okay, I think it is better suited for blktests, so I'll add it there. > > > > > Also, just for the records, ext4 passes the fio tests ONLY because we use > > the same io size for all threads. If we happen to start overlapping > > RWF_ATOMIC writes with different sizes that can get torn due to racing > > unwritten conversion. > > I'd keep the same io size for all threads in the tests. Yep Thanks, Ojaswin > > Thanks, > John
