From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44DDC433E0 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 02:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B20FC207CB; Tue, 26 May 2020 02:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="ens6dKIm"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="M3HbSFLZ"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Pf4UFIuR" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B20FC207CB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdPJ7-0001nh-4R; Tue, 26 May 2020 02:27:09 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdPIz-0001nE-7I for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2020 02:27:01 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=AzjylsIp10OlAuluBdfJmKZKediat9Q+S5OGzdPhinU=; b=ens6dKImv+URFp4168iJUcdv2D 3907wU+48I5Zujetv4BRgfaaF8A0ADtaXKEJ5KyZgSMdM4kCdDt470c8yj9i1EknQtjWzgAxXnOnO ydQOKnMW9mtCG1C1WJGiPxvjLQrnNNOn01/CwaABZWdoOTaKmZTAjqsjdjd/IjgEgJcA=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=AzjylsIp10OlAuluBdfJmKZKediat9Q+S5OGzdPhinU=; b=M3HbSFLZ47usd5Ti3q2ve1NWYy D+qPKfpuLkx7xjZF7WzelIxXB/QxP3W0E/MMjkMv7IqEyWnKUe0YCZb3HSyB6oshh9Ai0rbwJ3XS2 QQEe017xWM3GMoEqLbAcIJ3MtLqETj/J5/1+LiULSZugt3PkcreAOgy5/R/bj8T511p0=; Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by sfi-mx-1.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1jdPIx-0073v2-Oq for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 May 2020 02:27:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (unknown [104.132.1.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39E75207CB; Tue, 26 May 2020 02:26:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1590460007; bh=IRexk2qEq0V/2dZrkQJ/vuTfY8AyigncyrAexqvlikw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Pf4UFIuRIcBgi5zETsDt+9a4y5XQtcgbzJWhRscy6EZTyCitLXo6fyppesanvnsB+ j+U0oXCYJtdcSnSpIMhZ+8xuslVddZoc3+dXEIPT+xXNZT6ZnK/HuWvOp/B2d/r5BP VdQRh7rUbRCvj3L4pnwsQeHN+x3KWwQpWKDnHqxE= Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 19:26:46 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Chao Yu Message-ID: <20200526022646.GA226136@google.com> References: <20200526015917.GB207949@google.com> <9a09da49-9b3d-68c3-f47f-40bb7e4309b8@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9a09da49-9b3d-68c3-f47f-40bb7e4309b8@huawei.com> X-Headers-End: 1jdPIx-0073v2-Oq Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] Discard issue X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Linux F2FS Dev Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On 05/26, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Jaegeuk, > > On 2020/5/26 9:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > Hi Chao, > > > > I'm hitting segment.c:1065 when running longer fsstress (1000s) with error > > (1000s) do you mean time in single round or total time of multi rounds? > > > injection. Do you have any issue from your side? > > I haven't hit that before, in my test, in single round, fsstress won't last long > time (normally about 10s+ for each round). > > Below is por_fsstress() implementation in my code base: > > por_fsstress() > { > _fs_opts > > while true; do > ltp/fsstress -x "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" -X 10 -r -f fsync=8 -f sync=0 -f write=4 -f dwrite=2 -f truncate=6 -f allocsp=0 -f bulkstat=0 -f bulkstat1=0 -f freesp=0 -f zero=1 -f collapse=1 -f insert=1 -f resvsp=0 -f unresvsp=0 -S t -p 20 -n 200000 -d $TESTDIR/test & > sleep 10 > src/godown $TESTDIR > killall fsstress > sleep 5 > umount $TESTDIR > if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then > for i in `seq 1 50` > do > umount $TESTDIR > if [ $? -eq 0]; then > break > fi > sleep 5 > done > fi > echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches > _fsck > _mount f2fs > rm $TESTDIR/testfile > touch $TESTDIR/testfile > umount $TESTDIR > _fsck > _mount f2fs > _rm_50 > done > } > > Did you update this code? > > Could you share more test configuration, like mkfs option, device size, mount option, > new por_fsstress() implementation if it exists? I can try to reproduce this issue > in my env. I just changed, in __run_godown_fsstress(), sleep 1000 instead of 10. https://github.com/jaegeuk/xfstests-f2fs/blob/f2fs/run.sh#L249 ./run.sh por_fsstress > > Thanks, > > > > > Thanks, > > . > > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel