* Re: [PATCH 4/8] Add test of quota accounting using fsx [not found] ` <20100615095505.GB3347@quack.suse.cz> @ 2010-07-26 21:46 ` Eric Sandeen 2010-07-27 8:15 ` Jan Kara 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2010-07-26 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kara; +Cc: hch, xfs, ext4 development On 06/15/2010 04:55 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 09-06-10 12:49:49, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Jan Kara wrote: >>> Run fsx (and also several fsx threads in parallel) and verify that >>> quota accounting is correct after they finish. >> >> Jan, I'm having trouble with this one on XFS for some reason, with our >> RHEL6 kernel and quota-3.17... > OK, attached is an improvement to the XFSQA tests after which all quota > tests pass for XFS just fine. > The second patch is just minor general improvement of _require_scratch > macro. > Could they be added to XFSQA repository? Thanks. Jan, I've got some ext4 failures reported on these, although I can't hit them, so not quite sure what's going on. In 231: +< fsgqa -- 760 0 0 3 0 0 +--- +> fsgqa -- 764 0 0 3 0 0 +14c14 +< fsgqa -- 760 0 0 3 0 0 +--- +> fsgqa -- 764 0 0 3 0 0 after the quotacheck & repquota we have 4 more blocks. Maybe this is due to my accounting of metadata blocks at write time, and not before ... would it be reasonable to put a sync call as the first line of check_usage() ? Also in 233: +< #501 -- 15392 0 0 998 0 0 +< #501 -- 15392 32000 32000 998 1000 1000 +--- +> #501 +- 32084 32000 32000 7days 998 1000 1000 +> #501 -- 32084 0 0 998 0 0 "7days" magically appeared after the quotacheck. Not sure what's going on there... Thanks, -Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/8] Add test of quota accounting using fsx 2010-07-26 21:46 ` [PATCH 4/8] Add test of quota accounting using fsx Eric Sandeen @ 2010-07-27 8:15 ` Jan Kara 2010-07-27 8:48 ` Jan Kara 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jan Kara @ 2010-07-27 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Jan Kara, hch, xfs, ext4 development On Mon 26-07-10 16:46:17, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 06/15/2010 04:55 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 09-06-10 12:49:49, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> Jan Kara wrote: > >>> Run fsx (and also several fsx threads in parallel) and verify that > >>> quota accounting is correct after they finish. > >> > >> Jan, I'm having trouble with this one on XFS for some reason, with our > >> RHEL6 kernel and quota-3.17... > > OK, attached is an improvement to the XFSQA tests after which all quota > > tests pass for XFS just fine. > > The second patch is just minor general improvement of _require_scratch > > macro. > > Could they be added to XFSQA repository? Thanks. > > Jan, I've got some ext4 failures reported on these, although I can't hit > them, so not quite sure what's going on. > > In 231: > > +< fsgqa -- 760 0 0 3 0 0 > +--- > +> fsgqa -- 764 0 0 3 0 0 > +14c14 > +< fsgqa -- 760 0 0 3 0 0 > +--- > +> fsgqa -- 764 0 0 3 0 0 > > after the quotacheck & repquota we have 4 more blocks. Maybe this > is due to my accounting of metadata blocks at write time, and not > before ... would it be reasonable to put a sync call as the first > line of check_usage() ? Just last week a change went into xfstests which introduces a generic quota checking function and uses sync before getting quota usage. I think xfstests passed for me with ext4 after this change but I've now restarted the tests to recheck it. > Also in 233: > > +< #501 -- 15392 0 0 998 0 0 > +< #501 -- 15392 32000 32000 998 1000 1000 > +--- > +> #501 +- 32084 32000 32000 7days 998 1000 1000 > +> #501 -- 32084 0 0 998 0 0 > > "7days" magically appeared after the quotacheck. Not sure what's going > on there... That's because the usage after checking exceeded block soft limit and thus grace time has been set. So it's the same problem as in the above test. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> SUSE Labs, CR ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/8] Add test of quota accounting using fsx 2010-07-27 8:15 ` Jan Kara @ 2010-07-27 8:48 ` Jan Kara 2010-07-27 13:11 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jan Kara @ 2010-07-27 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Jan Kara, hch, xfs, ext4 development On Tue 27-07-10 10:15:38, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 26-07-10 16:46:17, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 06/15/2010 04:55 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Wed 09-06-10 12:49:49, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > >> Jan Kara wrote: > > >>> Run fsx (and also several fsx threads in parallel) and verify that > > >>> quota accounting is correct after they finish. > > >> > > >> Jan, I'm having trouble with this one on XFS for some reason, with our > > >> RHEL6 kernel and quota-3.17... > > > OK, attached is an improvement to the XFSQA tests after which all quota > > > tests pass for XFS just fine. > > > The second patch is just minor general improvement of _require_scratch > > > macro. > > > Could they be added to XFSQA repository? Thanks. > > > > Jan, I've got some ext4 failures reported on these, although I can't hit > > them, so not quite sure what's going on. > > > > In 231: > > > > +< fsgqa -- 760 0 0 3 0 0 > > +--- > > +> fsgqa -- 764 0 0 3 0 0 > > +14c14 > > +< fsgqa -- 760 0 0 3 0 0 > > +--- > > +> fsgqa -- 764 0 0 3 0 0 > > > > after the quotacheck & repquota we have 4 more blocks. Maybe this > > is due to my accounting of metadata blocks at write time, and not > > before ... would it be reasonable to put a sync call as the first > > line of check_usage() ? > Just last week a change went into xfstests which introduces a generic > quota checking function and uses sync before getting quota usage. I think > xfstests passed for me with ext4 after this change but I've now restarted > the tests to recheck it. For me all the quota tests pass just fine with ext4 and the latest xfstests... So does the latest version work also for you? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> SUSE Labs, CR ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/8] Add test of quota accounting using fsx 2010-07-27 8:48 ` Jan Kara @ 2010-07-27 13:11 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2010-07-27 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kara; +Cc: Jan Kara, hch@infradead.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, ext4 development On Jul 27, 2010, at 3:48 AM, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: >>> >> Just last week a change went into xfstests which introduces a generic >> quota checking function and uses sync before getting quota usage. I think >> xfstests passed for me with ext4 after this change but I've now restarted >> the tests to recheck it. > For me all the quota tests pass just fine with ext4 and the latest > xfstests... So does the latest version work also for you? > Whoops sorry, they do pass for me in the devel tree; I had missed that recent change and I guess our qa had tested a tree without it. I wondered why it didn't work for them... Sorry for the noise.... Eric > Honza > -- > Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > SUSE Labs, CR > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-07-27 13:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <1274710459-11446-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
[not found] ` <1274710459-11446-5-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
[not found] ` <4C0FD43D.3040803@sandeen.net>
[not found] ` <20100615095505.GB3347@quack.suse.cz>
2010-07-26 21:46 ` [PATCH 4/8] Add test of quota accounting using fsx Eric Sandeen
2010-07-27 8:15 ` Jan Kara
2010-07-27 8:48 ` Jan Kara
2010-07-27 13:11 ` Eric Sandeen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).