From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
<ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>, <linux@roeck-us.net>,
<yi.zhang@huawei.com>, <yukuai3@huawei.com>,
<yangerkun@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix crash on test_mb_mark_used kunit tests
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 09:47:15 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0213b23c-e746-4e05-b151-8b0f5bd3d7d2@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250725131541.GA184259@mit.edu>
On 7/25/2025 9:15 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 01:06:18PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> This patch applies to the kernel that has only merged bbe11dd13a3f
>>> ("ext4: fix largest free orders lists corruption on mb_optimize_scan
>>> switch"), but not merged 458bfb991155 ("ext4: convert free groups order
>>> lists to xarrays").
>> Hum, I think it would be best to just squash this into bbe11dd13a3f and
>> then just rebase & squash the other unittest fixup to the final commit when
>> we have to rebase anyway. Because otherwise backports to stable kernel will
>> quickly become rather messy.
> What I ended up doing was to add a squashed combination of these two
> commits and dropped it in before the block allocation scalabiltity
> with the following commit description:
>
> ext4: initialize superblock fields in the kballoc-test.c kunit tests
>
> Various changes in the "ext4: better scalability for ext4 block
> allocation" patch series have resulted in kunit test failures, most
> notably in the test_new_blocks_simple and the test_mb_mark_used tests.
> The root cause of these failures is that various in-memory ext4 data
> structures were not getting initialized, and while previous versions
> of the functions exercised by the unit tests didn't use these
> structure members, this was arguably a test bug.
>
> Since one of the patches in the block allocation scalability patches
> is a fix which is has a cc:stable tag, this commit also has a
> cc:stable tag.
>
> CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250714130327.1830534-1-libaokun1@huawei.com
> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250725021550.3177573-1-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com
> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250725021654.3188798-1-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com
> Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/b0635ad0-7ebf-4152-a69b-58e7e87d5085@roeck-us.net/
> Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
>
> Then in the commit "ext4: convert free groups order lists to xarrays"
> which removed list_head, I modified it to remove the linked list
> initialization from mballoc-test.c, since that's the commit which
> removed those structures.
This looks good to me. Thank you for helping to adapt this patch!
>
> In the future, we should try to make sure that when we modify data
> structures to add or remove struct elements, that we also make sure
> that kunit test should also be updated. To that end, I've updated the
> kbuild script[1] in xfstests-bld repo so that "kbuild --test" will run
> the Kunit tests. Hopefully reducing the friction for running tests
> will encourage more kunit tests to be created and so they will kept
> under regular maintenance.
>
> [1] https://github.com/tytso/xfstests-bld/blob/master/kernel-build/kbuild
Yeah, unit tests are a much more efficient way to catch problems compared
to full system tests. Running them regularly would be a great way to
quickly surface issues.
On top of that, I think it's worth revisiting our current code and cleaning
up some of the logic. Specifically, refactoring initialization functions to
align with the single-responsibility principle would enable reuse between
production and testing flows, and minimize strange edge cases we’ve been
seeing.
Cheers,
Baokun
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-26 1:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-25 2:16 [PATCH] ext4: fix crash on test_mb_mark_used kunit tests Zhang Yi
2025-07-25 11:06 ` Jan Kara
2025-07-25 13:15 ` Theodore Ts'o
2025-07-26 1:42 ` Zhang Yi
2025-07-26 3:09 ` Theodore Ts'o
2025-07-26 1:47 ` Baokun Li [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0213b23c-e746-4e05-b151-8b0f5bd3d7d2@huawei.com \
--to=libaokun1@huawei.com \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox