From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kent Overstreet Subject: Re: Bcachefs testing needed Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 07:29:07 -0900 Message-ID: <20161106162907.yuwnjipnbj6q4yxd@kmo-pixel> References: <20161105160502.5bknr5ufufzdyn3i@kmo-pixel> <16bf179c-6ed4-5f82-b95d-7a5a9c01d20b@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com ([209.85.192.195]:34558 "EHLO mail-pf0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750933AbcKFQ3M (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Nov 2016 11:29:12 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f195.google.com with SMTP id y68so13726299pfb.1 for ; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 08:29:11 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16bf179c-6ed4-5f82-b95d-7a5a9c01d20b@gmail.com> Sender: linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org To: Joe Landman Cc: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, chris@cooperteam.net, marcin@mejor.pl On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 10:32:14AM -0500, Joe Landman wrote: > > On 11/05/2016 12:05 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Chris, Marcin, anyone else who wants to help out - the bcachefs-testing branch > > needs testing before I merge in those patches. > > > > Chris was seeing filesystem corruption with the foreground btree merging > > patches, and I still haven't figured out what that was (although I have fixed > > some possible culprits), so please don't run this on anything with real data > > until it's seen some more testing. This branch also doesn't have btree node > > merging yet - it's got the btree locking changes, and some new work making > > iterators more rigorous and tightening up invariants. Once we're sure that stuff > > is all good I'll push out btree node merging again. > > > > And I definitely could use more testers - testing is getting to be a significant > > bottleneck these days. > > Last I checked, the bcachefs came as an entire specific kernel tree, and not > patch(sets) against kernels. I'd be looking to test against 4.4 and > possibly 4.8, as we also have our own patches we need to apply and I don't > want to rebase everything to test this. Patches would definitely be easier > for me to apply and test with. 4.4 is our current kernel, 3.18 is our > legacy, and 4.8 is our experimental. > > Happy to try to generate a patch if you can tell me what tree you based it > on. bcache-dev is currently based on 4.8 - if you checkout that branch with git, 'git diff v4.8' will give you a patch. I do have changes to core kernel code, if that doesn't apply cleanly let me know where the conflicts are and we can decide what to do then. > FWIW: We've got lots of kit we can test it against (large multi-disk > servers, lots of SSD, etc.) in our lab. Cool. More performance testing would be particularly helpful :)