From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ted Ts'o Subject: KVM-based xfstests appliance Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:32:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20110829133248.GC12187@thunk.org> References: <20110828235437.GA12187@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:54532 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753634Ab1H2Ncv (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:32:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110828235437.GA12187@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 07:54:37PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > Has anyone else noticed failures with xfstests #74? What I'm finding > is that if compile the fstest program so that it is statically linked, > I can't get it to fail: I've put up an my KVM-based xfstests appliance here: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/V-xfstests.tar.gz Hopefully this will be useful for other people who are trying to do QA work for ext4. I find it's much more convenient to test out a kernel by running "kvm-xfstests smoke", or "kvm-xfstests full". BTW, I've found that the xfstests 74 test failure is very timing dependent. It doesn't fail when I use another system which has faster disks than dm-crypt'ed laptop drives, and where writeback mode is enabled with lots of memory available for caching purposes. It seems to require memory pressure and slower disks. I should check and see whether it involves ext4_writepage() getting invoked out of the direct reclaim path... - Ted