From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from tbjjbihbhebab.turbo-smtp.net ([199.187.174.101]:22184 "HELO tbjjbihbhebab.turbo-smtp.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750954AbbJAIs1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2015 04:48:27 -0400 Message-ID: <560CF355.7050200@sysam.it> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 10:48:21 +0200 From: Angelo Dureghello MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: help on xfs test results References: <560C69D9.6020807@sysam.it> In-Reply-To: <560C69D9.6020807@sysam.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: fstests List-ID: Hi Dave, many thanks On 30/09/2015 01:28, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:03:36AM +0200, Angelo Dureghello wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> thanks for all the great support until now. >> >> I finally completed all the tests in my arm 32 bit target platform, >> and have still 4 hopefully false positives. Below my comments: >> >> >> >> generic tests >> >> *** 256 >> /media/p6/fill.161/3.bin: No space left on device >> >> - output mismatch (see >> /home/angelo/xfstests/results//./generic/256.out.bad) >> --- tests/./generic/256.out 2015-09-17 10:54:06.815078834 +0000 >> +++ >> /home/angelo/xfstests/results//./generic/256.out.bad 2000-01-01 >> 00:42:13.822058816 +0000 >> @@ -1 +1,2229 @@ >> QA output created by 256 >> +wrote 1073741824/1073741824 bytes at offset 0 >> +1 GiB, 262144 ops; 0:02:35.00 (6.602 MiB/sec and 1690.0353 ops/sec) >> +pwrite64: No space left on device >> +pwrite64: No space left on device >> +pwrite64: No space left on device >> +pwrite64: No space left on device >> ... > > There should be ENOSPC being reported during the test but they > should all be redirected to /dev/null. Perhaps shomething wrong with > redirection? Well, this is generic/256, the expected output is null, my output btw is full of failed and also non-failed operations. Sounds quite strange. QA output created by 256 wrote 1073741824/1073741824 bytes at offset 0 1 GiB, 262144 ops; 0:01:58.00 (8.653 MiB/sec and 2215.1991 ops/sec) pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device /media/p6/fill/13.bin: No space left on device /media/p6/fill/14.bin: No space left on device /media/p6/fill/15.bin: No space left on device /media/p6/fill/16.bin: No space left on device /media/p6/fill/17.bin: No space left on device /media/p6/fill/18.bin: No space left on device /media/p6/fill/19.bin: No space left on device /media/p6/fill/20.bin: No space left on device wrote 8192/8192 bytes at offset 0 8 KiB, 2 ops; 0.0000 sec (2.031 MiB/sec and 519.8856 ops/sec) pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device wrote 8192/8192 bytes at offset 0 8 KiB, 2 ops; 0.0000 sec (427.122 KiB/sec and 106.7806 ops/sec) pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device wrote 8192/8192 bytes at offset 0 8 KiB, 2 ops; 0.0000 sec (49.019 KiB/sec and 12.2548 ops/sec) pwrite64: No space left on device pwrite64: No space left on device wrote 8192/8192 bytes at offset 0 ..... > >> xfs tests >> **** 020 > > You need to be more explicit about the test description. Does "020" > mean generic/020, xfs/020, btrfs/020, etc? > >> creates a 60t, fails if > 16t (Growing the data section failed), >> could be normal in 32bit arch ? > > 32 bit system can't use a 60TB block device or file, so this needs > a "_requires_64bit_blockdev" type of check. > ack, thanks. >> **** 080 >> Looks like not XFS issue. mmap() failed, no more memory after 2,5G > > various tests will fail if you don't have enough memory or address > space. Expunge them from your normal testing if it's just memory > allocation that is the problem. ack, thanks. > >> **** 136 >> very long test, output similar but different values > > xfs/136 shouldn't run your machine out of memory. If it does, then > you probably should start looking for a memory leak... > Sorry, was not precise in explaining this. This is xfs/136, Test is very long and full of differences compared to the expected .out. Strange thing is that the the messages are very similar, but values displayed are different. xfs/136 - output mismatch (see /home/angelo/xfstests/results//xfs/136.out.bad) --- tests/xfs/136.out 2015-09-17 10:54:06.984088997 +0000 +++ /home/angelo/xfstests/results//xfs/136.out.bad 2015-09-20 # diff 136.out.bad ../../tests/xfs/136.out 17c17 < core.forkoff = 47 (376 bytes) --- > core.forkoff = 24 (192 bytes) 34c34 < core.forkoff = 47 (376 bytes) --- > core.forkoff = 24 (192 bytes) 57c57 < core.forkoff = 44 (352 bytes) --- > core.forkoff = 24 (192 bytes) 92c92 < core.forkoff = 37 (296 bytes) --- > core.forkoff = 24 (192 bytes) 150,250c150,153 < core.naextents = 0 < core.forkoff = 22 (176 bytes) < core.aformat = 1 (local) < a.sfattr.hdr.totsize = 235 < a.sfattr.hdr.count = 16 < a.sfattr.list[0].namelen = 6 < a.sfattr.list[0].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[0].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[0].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[0].name = "name.1" < a.sfattr.list[0].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[1].namelen = 6 < a.sfattr.list[1].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[1].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[1].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[1].name = "name.2" < a.sfattr.list[1].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[2].namelen = 6 < a.sfattr.list[2].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[2].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[2].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[2].name = "name.3" < a.sfattr.list[2].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[3].namelen = 6 < a.sfattr.list[3].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[3].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[3].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[3].name = "name.4" < a.sfattr.list[3].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[4].namelen = 6 < a.sfattr.list[4].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[4].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[4].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[4].name = "name.5" < a.sfattr.list[4].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[5].namelen = 6 < a.sfattr.list[5].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[5].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[5].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[5].name = "name.6" < a.sfattr.list[5].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[6].namelen = 6 < a.sfattr.list[6].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[6].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[6].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[6].name = "name.7" < a.sfattr.list[6].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[7].namelen = 6 < a.sfattr.list[7].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[7].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[7].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[7].name = "name.8" < a.sfattr.list[7].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[8].namelen = 6 < a.sfattr.list[8].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[8].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[8].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[8].name = "name.9" < a.sfattr.list[8].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[9].namelen = 7 < a.sfattr.list[9].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[9].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[9].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[9].name = "name.10" < a.sfattr.list[9].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[10].namelen = 7 < a.sfattr.list[10].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[10].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[10].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[10].name = "name.11" < a.sfattr.list[10].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[11].namelen = 7 < a.sfattr.list[11].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[11].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[11].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[11].name = "name.12" < a.sfattr.list[11].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[12].namelen = 7 < a.sfattr.list[12].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[12].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[12].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[12].name = "name.13" < a.sfattr.list[12].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[13].namelen = 7 < a.sfattr.list[13].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[13].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[13].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[13].name = "name.14" < a.sfattr.list[13].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[14].namelen = 7 < a.sfattr.list[14].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[14].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[14].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[14].name = "name.15" < a.sfattr.list[14].value = "value" < a.sfattr.list[15].namelen = 7 < a.sfattr.list[15].valuelen = 5 < a.sfattr.list[15].root = 0 < a.sfattr.list[15].secure = 0 < a.sfattr.list[15].name = "name.16" < a.sfattr.list[15].value = "value" --- > core.naextents = 1 > core.forkoff = 24 (192 bytes) > core.aformat = 2 (extents) > a.bmx[0] = [startoff,startblock,blockcount,extentflag] 0:[0,16,1,0] ..... Regards, Angelo