From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01A6C1A01AE for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725984755; cv=none; b=SAyn4y9svel51yLBVuL1rMQqc6bBeoUgNevbIHnGSJ0gRWbTXUcMg3OAmOKgCTGOklf19bAXN56PN4xCQJmVAThi+Q0m0jbbisNo/srkw2QXDxyVsmi729YgCRA+BxQjQ50lNEl0GvQCtvWppVF2GR6+n8WXT2eqdt0Ur/jRmhU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725984755; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XOyzOGhRVa8POUMC89T+vTtKBJqWPIY41iQUE89n0ZM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fGDVq3hvQenapnbjiaiY6C0otzCw06ajmOi0LZ1W6piZqGPXEDlTXwImiyGxzLzbZ9kkzjTqe6xMAEmZqr/NQLX0dKOwvpGgp2WDOuAhCvW+6nDN+pUXtwr6APOtpqsyMOp0p+iRp8hrEWdinWfFcMobhghYFCyvQtDIWVSMpX0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=PiyTOpiN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="PiyTOpiN" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1725984752; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=UnrHpgCi6k7zNrHt/uKQL5qvcm/koUg/CD8NHy1iLno=; b=PiyTOpiNuDqzfJHsstFgqaSm5C1S7XxlAr9OihWO3MqP/MNVgmtvrtHPAHZxvxwTNVOGKJ RgcI7WqxDy4kpxWNKbgH9ZWW4SToV5obRQ+r0jYIj2QZDRr3dQBHI/8YnZzDu8rzVq0klN UALz0aODK6KvODqJ/m2HpCya3pY0H/k= Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-588-kZQAjgUANK2U_ULPulpgNA-1; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 12:12:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: kZQAjgUANK2U_ULPulpgNA-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C681195604F; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:12:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bfoster (unknown [10.22.16.69]) by mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FDAE1956086; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:12:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 12:13:29 -0400 From: Brian Foster To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: zlang@kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: test log recovery for extent frees right after growfs Message-ID: References: <20240910043127.3480554-1-hch@lst.de> <20240910151053.GA22643@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240910151053.GA22643@lst.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.15 On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 05:10:53PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 10:19:50AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > No real issue with the test, but I wonder if we could do something more > > generic. Various XFS shutdown and log recovery issues went undetected > > for a while until we started adding more of the generic stress tests > > currently categorized in the recoveryloop group. > > > > So for example, I'm wondering if you took something like generic/388 or > > 475 and modified it to start with a smallish fs, grew it in 1GB or > > whatever increments on each loop iteration, and then ran the same > > generic stress/timeout/shutdown/recovery sequence, would that eventually > > reproduce the issue you've fixed? I don't think reproducibility would > > need to be 100% for the test to be useful, fwiw. > > > > Note that I'm assuming we don't have something like that already. I see > > growfs and shutdown tests in tests/xfs/group.list, but nothing in both > > groups and I haven't looked through the individual tests. Just a > > thought. > > It turns out reproducing this bug was surprisingly complicated. > After a growfs we can now dip into reserves that made the test1 > file start filling up the existing AGs first for a while, and thus > the error injection would hit on that and never even reach a new > AG. > > So while agree with your sentiment and like the highlevel idea, I > suspect it will need a fair amount of work to actually be useful. > Right now I'm too busy with various projects to look into it > unfortunately. > Fair enough, maybe I'll play with it a bit when I have some more time. Brian