On 2021/5/25 下午5:45, Qu Wenruo wrote:
[...]

quoted

quoted

What a relief, it's not a big problem in my patchset, but more likely to
be in the test case, especially in the how the mirror number is chosen.

When the test failed, you can find in the dmesg that, there is not any
error mssage related to csum mismatch at all.

This means, we're reading the correct copy, no wonder we won't submit
read repair.
This is mostly caused by the page size difference I guess, which makes
the pid balance read for RAID1 less perdicatable.

I don't yet have any good idea to fix the test case yet, so I'm afraid
we have to consider it as a false alert.

Ohk gr8, Thanks a lot for looking into it.
I saw the change log of v3, though I don't think there are any changes
from when
I last tested the whole patch series, still I will give it a full run
with v3
for both 4k and 64k config, (since now mostly all issues should be
fixed).

Just to be more clear, there are some known bugs in the base of my
subpage branch:

- 9d57e61bf723 ("of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-
   bit memory addresses")
   Will screw up at least my ARM board, which is using device tree for
   its PCIE node.
   Have to revert it.

- 764c7c9a464b ("btrfs: zoned: fix parallel compressed writes")
   Will screw up compressed write with striped RAID profile.
   Fix sent to the mail list:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-btrfs/patch/20210525055243.85166-1-wqu@suse.com/


- Known btrfs mkfs bug
   Fix sent to the mail list:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-btrfs/patch/20210517095516.129287-1-wqu@suse.com/


- btrfs/215 false alert
   Fix sent to the mail list:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-btrfs/patch/20210517092922.119788-1-wqu@suse.com/

Please wait for while.

I just checked my latest result, the branch doesn't pass my local test
for subpage case.

I'll fix it first, sorry for the problem.

Thanks,
Qu

Thanks,
Qu

quoted

Thanks
-ritesh

quoted

Thanks,
Qu

quoted

Thanks again for the awesome report!
Qu

quoted

-ritesh

quoted

quoted

2. btrfs/124 failure.

I guess below could be due to small size of the device?

xfstests.global-btrfs/4k.btrfs/124
Error Details
- output mismatch (see /results/btrfs/results-4k/btrfs/124.out.bad)

Again passes locally.

But accroding to your fs, I notice several unbalanced disk usage:

# /usr/local/bin/btrfs filesystem show
Label: none  uuid: fbb48eb6-25c7-4800-8656-503c1e502d85
     Total devices 2 FS bytes used 32.00KiB
     devid    1 size 5.00GiB used 622.38MiB path /dev/vdc
     devid    2 size 2.00GiB used 622.38MiB path /dev/vdi

Label: none  uuid: d3c4fb09-eea2-4dea-8187-b13e97f4ad5c
     Total devices 4 FS bytes used 379.12MiB
     devid    1 size 5.00GiB used 8.00MiB path /dev/vdb
     devid    3 size 20.00GiB used 264.00MiB path /dev/vde
     devid    4 size 20.00GiB used 1.26GiB path /dev/vdf

We had reports about btrfs doing poor work when handling
unbalanced disk
sizes.
I had a purpose to fix it, with a little better calcuation, but still
not
yet perfect.

Thus would you mind to check if the test pass when all the disks in
SCRATCH_DEV_POOL are in the same size?

Of course we need to fix the problem of ENOSPC for unbalanced
disks, but
that's a common problem and not exacly related to subpage.
I should take some time to refresh the unbalanced disk usage patches
soon.

Thanksm
Qu

[...]

quoted

-ritesh