From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: Rare xfsqa test failure Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:28:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4A8C1A04.1090501@redhat.com> References: <20090818170705.GI5931@webber.adilger.int> <20090818214218.GK28560@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andreas Dilger , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:37889 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751795AbZHSP2I (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:28:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090818214218.GK28560@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:07:05AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: >>> EXTENTS: >>> (65-80): 60720-60735, (81-222 [uninit]): 1181574-1181715, (223-229): 1181716-118 >>> 1722 >>> debugfs: >>> >>> So it looks like there's a race which can cause ext4 to somehow miss an >>> i_size update. >> Are you sure it is a failure to update i_size, or is it possibly an >> fallocate that extends the block count beyond i_size? > > Look at the EXTENTS report from debugfs; blocks 81-222 are > uninitialized from an fallocate, but block 223-229 are initialized. > > - Ted This was from test 013? If so, that calls ltp's fsstress, which does not call fallocate nor posix_fallocate. It only does preallocation on xfs via the old xfs-specific ioctl (though I suppose we should add it...) -Eric