Re: [ANNOUNCE] new new aops patchset

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:03:50AM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 11:31 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 02:08:53AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > BTW, I will take a shot at ext4 tomorrow.
> > > 
> > > Thanks, so long as you think ext3 is looking OK?
> > > 
> > > BTW. is it a known issue that ext3 fails fsx-linux? (I tried 2.6.21-rc3
> > > IIRC, and ordered and writeback both eventually failed I think). ext2
> > > does not.
> > 
> > Well I just tested, and it is not fixed by the recent patch to revert
> > ext3_prepare_failure....
> > 
> > Is this a known issue? Is it an fsx-linux shortcoming? It is fairly
> > surprising because it basically makes it impossible to test ext3
> > changes with that nice tool :( I can submit the traces if anyone is
> > interested, however I can reproduce in UML on an ext3 writeback
> > filesystem with no arguments (except the filename).
> > 
> 
> I haven't seen an fsx failure recently. I ran 4 copies of fsx
> on 2.6.21-rc5 and 2.6.21-rc5+aops, without any problems for
> 12+ hours. What am I missing ?

Well this is in UML and mounted on loopback, so it could be a failure
in the driver stack somewhere. However ext2 is completely solid, so
I did suspect ext3.

In my configuration, some IO operations that would take a reasonable
amount of time on a real system will complete much more quickly.
There might be an issue there? Using a ramdisk or loop over tmpfs
might produce something.

I'll ping you again if I can reproduce outside of UML.