Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] fstests: generic: Check the fs after each FUA writes

Eryu Guan
2018-03-16T08:19:58Z

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:17:07PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年03月16日 12:01, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 05:02:30PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> Basic test case which triggers fsstress with dm-log-writes, and then
> >> check the fs after each FUA writes.
> >> With needed infrastructure and special handlers for journal based fs.
> >
> > It's not clear to me why the existing infrastructure is not sufficient
> > for the test. It'd be great if you could provide more information and/or
> > background in commit log.
>
> The main problem of current infrastructure is we don't have the
> following things:
>
> 1) Way to take full advantage of dm-log-writes
> The main thing is, we don't have test cases to check each FUA (this
> patch) and flush (later patch after clearing all the RFC comments).
>
> We have some dm-flakey test cases to emulate power loss, but they are
> mostly for fsync.
> Here we are not only testing fsync, but also every superblock update.
> Which should be a super set of dm-flakey tests.
>
> 2) Workaround for journal replay
> In fact, if we only test btrfs, we don't even need such complicated
> work, just 'replay-log --fsck "btrfs check" --check fua' will be
> enough. As btrfs check doesn't report dirty journal (log tree) as
> problem.
> But for journal based fses, their fsck all report dirty journal as
> error, which needs current snapshot works to replay them before
> running fsck.

And replay-to-fua doesn't guarantee a consistent filesystem state,
that's why we need to mount/umount the target device to replay the
filesystem journal, and to avoid replaying already-replayed-log over and
over again, we create a snapshot of the target device and mount cycle &
fsck the snapshot, right?

I'm wondering if the overhead of repeatly create & destroy snapshots is
larger than replaying log from start. Maybe snapshots take more time?

>
> I would add them in next version if there is no extra comment on this.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> >> ---
> >> In my test, xfs and btrfs survives while ext4 would report error during fsck.
> >>
> >> My current biggest concern is, we abuse $TEST_DEV and mkfs on it all by
> >> ourselves. Not sure if it's allowed.
> >
> > As Amir already replied, that's not allowed, any destructive operations
> > should be done on $SCRATCH_DEV.
>
> Yep, I'm looking for similar case who uses $SCRATCH_DEV as LVM pv do get
> extra device.
>
> Or can we reuse the scratch_dev_pool even for ext4/xfs?

I think so, IMO pool devices are not limited to btrfs. But I think we
could use a loop device reside on $TEST_DIR? Or if snapshots take longer
time, then we don't need this extra device at all :)

I have some other comments, will reply to the RFC patch in another
email.

Thanks,
Eryu