Re: xfstests and current cifs for-next patch set

[Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@redhat.com>]

I ran a git bisect and the performance drop came with commit d3de48233978524514d3b605ad55bb21d1ecd706


----- Original Message -----
From: "ronnie sahlberg" <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
To: "Steve French" <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc: "Pavel Shilovsky" <piastryyy@gmail.com>, "Aurélien Aptel" <aaptel@suse.com>, "CIFS" <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Thursday, 21 February, 2019 8:47:44 AM
Subject: Re: xfstests and current cifs for-next patch set

generic/013 and generic/014 failed with timeout.  These tests used to
take several minutes.

Testing locally,    generic/013 is successful but it takes almost
three times longer than it used to just a week ago.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:18 AM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Looks like Pavel's latest fix (unrelated to credits it turns out, the
> problem in this case was skipping a mid) does fix xfstest 310.   Azure
> test bucket passes, no reconnects that I spotted:
>
> http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/4/builds/94
>
> Running cifs-testing buildbot bucket now.
>
> http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/2/builds/134
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 1:30 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Retrying the same test run it worked.   Rerunning the same set of
> > patches but this time with larger (cifs-testing) collection of tests
> > on the buildbot
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:38 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The test (310 and subsequent) seemed to start failing with this in dmesg:
> > >
> > > [root@fedora29 ~]# dmesg
> > > [ 2969.016552] CIFS VFS: Cancelling wait for mid 29640 cmd: 14
> > > [ 2979.449426] CIFS VFS: disabling echoes and oplocks
> > > [ 2999.109655] CIFS VFS: Cancelling wait for mid 1494 cmd: 6
> > > [ 3225.207488] CIFS VFS: Server
> > > linuxsmb3testshares.file.core.windows.net has not responded in 120
> > > seconds. Reconnecting...
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 8:30 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So (unless there is a random factor involved) - I narrowed it down to this patch
> > > >
> > > > Author: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@microsoft.com>
> > > > Date:   Wed Jan 16 11:12:41 2019 -0800
> > > >
> > > >     CIFS: Respect reconnect in MTU credits calculations
> > > >
> > > >     Every time after a session reconnect we don't need to account for
> > > >     credits obtained in previous sessions. Introduce new struct cifs_credits
> > > >     which contains both credits value and reconnect instance of the
> > > >     time those credits were taken. Modify a routine that add credits
> > > >     back to handle the reconnect instance by assuming zero credits
> > > >     if the reconnect happened after the credits were obtained and
> > > >     before we decided to add them back due to some errors during sending.
> > > >
> > > >     This patch fixes the MTU credits cases. The subsequent patch
> > > >     will handle non-MTU ones.
> > > >
> > > >     Signed-off-by: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@microsoft.com>
> > > >     Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > > From: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
> > > > Date: Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 6:46 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: xfstests and current cifs for-next patch set
> > > > To: CIFS <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Narrowed the xfstest 310 possible regression in current for-next down
> > > > to three patches, rerunning with this one of the three added (see
> > > > http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/4/builds/85)
> > > >
> > > > Author: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@microsoft.com>
> > > > Date:   Wed Jan 16 11:12:41 2019 -0800
> > > >
> > > >     CIFS: Respect reconnect in MTU credits calculations
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 1:40 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > With 5.0-rc5 and current for-next (29 paches) two tests 310 (read and
> > > > > readdir simultaneously) and 422 (delayed allocation stat, number of
> > > > > blocks) fail I see this in the azure test bucket in the buildbot).
> > > > > see this run: http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/4/builds/80
> > > > >
> > > > > These don't fail when I select only the first 8 cifs fixes in for-next
> > > > > ontop of 5.0-rc5.  See
> > > > > http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/4/builds/82
> > > > >  so am trying to narrow it down.    This run (in progress)
> > > > > http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/4/builds/83
> > > > > has the first 19 (of the 29) cifs patches (ontop of 5.0-rc5 mainline
> > > > > as with the runs above) so we can bisect which commit causes the
> > > > > problem with tests 310 and 422.
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems unrelated to the problem I see in slightly more current
> > > > > mainline (that we can see with no cifs changes) in xfstest 422 that
> > > > > was introduced with 5.0-rc6.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me know if others (or other scenario problems) see the tests
> > > > > 310/422 failure.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Steve
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Steve