From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>
Cc: Jeremy Bongio <bongiojp@gmail.com>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org,
"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] ext4/056: add a check to make sure ext4 uuid ioctls get/set during fsstress.
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 07:42:25 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YtfqIVEi7g4fFpqU@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220720100949.dttc5qbmy4qziz65@zlang-mailbox>
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 06:09:49PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 05:02:56PM -0700, Jeremy Bongio wrote:
> > +# Override the default cleanup function.
> > +_cleanup()
> > +{
> > + cd /
> > + rm -r -f $tmp.*
> > + kill -9 $fsstress_pid 2>/dev/null;
> > + wait $fsstress_pid > /dev/null 2>&1
>
> I think "wait" is enough. With this change, it's good to me.
The kill -9 is needed, because otherwise the test will run for a
**very** long time. The reason for it is because of the -n 999999 in
fstress_args:
> > +# Begin fsstress while modifying UUID
> > +fsstress_args=$(_scale_fsstress_args -d $SCRATCH_MNT -p 15 -n 999999)
> > +$FSSTRESS_PROG $fsstress_args > /dev/null 2>&1 &
> > +fsstress_pid=$!
We could adjust the number of loops to a more reasonable number, but
then test becomes less reliable, since depending on the storage device
(e.g., cheap USB thumb drive found in the checkout counter at a
convenience store, vs. a high-end NVMe SSD) and the overall speed of
the system, a different number of loops will be needed.
Given that we're *only* using the fsstress as an antogonist while we
are changing the UUID of the file system 20 times, killing the
fsstress once we're done with the UUID runs is sufficient, I would
argue.
Also, Jeremy, it looks like you haven't updated your xfstests-dev
repository in a few weeks. Since you started this project, ext4/056
has been assigned, and there has been some new helper programs added
which caused patch conflicts in src/Makefile and in .gitignore. They
were pretty trivial to fix up the patch conflicts (which I've done in
my xfstests-dev tree), but it's best practice to rebase on top of
origin/for-next and re-test just to make sure there haven't been some
major change in the fstests common scripts that might catch your test
out.
Also, feel free to add my:
Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cheers,
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-20 11:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-20 0:02 [PATCH v5] ext4/056: add a check to make sure ext4 uuid ioctls get/set during fsstress Jeremy Bongio
2022-07-20 10:09 ` Zorro Lang
2022-07-20 11:42 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2022-07-20 15:06 ` Zorro Lang
2022-07-20 15:30 ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-07-20 17:16 ` Jeremy Bongio
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-07-19 23:44 Jeremy Bongio
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=YtfqIVEi7g4fFpqU@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=bongiojp@gmail.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zlang@redhat.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