Re: [RFC PATCH] fstests: Check if a fs can survive random (emulated) power loss

Qu Wenruo
2018-02-26T08:50:20Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2955 bytes --]

On 2018年02月26日 16:45, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年02月26日 16:33, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2018年02月26日 16:15, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> This test case is originally designed to expose unexpected corruption
>>>>>> for btrfs, where there are several reports about btrfs serious metadata
>>>>>> corruption after power loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The test case itself will trigger heavy fsstress for the fs, and use
>>>>>> dm-flakey to emulate power loss by dropping all later writes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Come on... dm-flakey is so 2016
>>>>> You should take Josef's fsstress+log-writes test and bring it to fstests:
>>>>> https://github.com/josefbacik/log-writes
>>>>>
>>>>> By doing that you will gain two very important features from the test:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Problems will be discovered much faster, because the test can run fsck
>>>>> after every single block write has been replayed instead of just at random
>>>>> times like in your test
>>>>
>>>> That's what exactly I want!!!
>>>>
>>>> Great thanks for this one! I would definitely look into this.
>>>> (Although the initial commit is even older than 2016)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that Josef's replay-individual-faster.sh script runs fsck
>>> every 1000 writes (i.e. --check 1000), so you can play with this argument
>>> in your test. Can also run --fsck every --check fua or --check flush, which
>>> may be more indicative of real world problems. not sure.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the test itself could already expose something on EXT4, it still
>>>> makes some sense for ext4 developers as a verification test case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please take a look at generic/456
>>> When generic/455 found a reproduciable problem in ext4,
>>> I created a specific test without any randomness to pin point the
>>> problem found (using dm-flakey).
>>> If the problem you found is reproduciable, then it will be easy for you
>>> to create a similar "bisected" test.
>>
>> Yep, it's definitely needed for a pin-point test case, but I'm also
>> wondering if a random, stress test could also help.
>>
>> Test case with plain fsstress is already super helpful to expose some
>> bugs, such stress test won't hurt.
>>
>
>
> Yes, but the same stress test with dm-log-writes instead of dm-flakey
> will be as useful and much more, so no reason to merge the less useful
> stress test.

OK, I'll try to use dm-log to enhance the test case.

Thanks,
Qu

>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 520 bytes --]