* xfstests generic/263
@ 2020-10-27 17:49 J. Bruce Fields
2020-10-27 19:59 ` Anna Schumaker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2020-10-27 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anna Schumaker; +Cc: linux-nfs
Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
READ_PLUS.
I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
READ_PLUS.
--b.
generic/263 109s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad)
--- tests/generic/263.out 2019-12-20 17:34:10.493343575 -0500
+++ /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad 2020-10-27 13:43:41.968835322 -0400
@@ -1,3 +1,2018 @@
QA output created by 263
fsx -N 10000 -o 8192 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z
-fsx -N 10000 -o 128000 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z
+Seed set to 1
+main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, disabling!
+main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE, disabling!
+main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE, disabling!
...
(Run 'diff -u /root/xfstests-dev/tests/generic/263.out /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
Ran: generic/263
Failures: generic/263
Failed 1 of 1 tests
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: xfstests generic/263
2020-10-27 17:49 xfstests generic/263 J. Bruce Fields
@ 2020-10-27 19:59 ` Anna Schumaker
2020-10-27 20:05 ` J. Bruce Fields
2020-11-05 20:52 ` J. Bruce Fields
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Anna Schumaker @ 2020-10-27 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: J. Bruce Fields; +Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>
> Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
> READ_PLUS.
>
> I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
> support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
> the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
> READ_PLUS.
I just ran xfstests, and I'm seeing this too. The test passes using
basic READ on v4.2, so there might be something farther down the log
that diff is cutting off. I'll see if anything sticks out to me this
week.
Anna
>
> --b.
>
> generic/263 109s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad)
> --- tests/generic/263.out 2019-12-20 17:34:10.493343575 -0500
> +++ /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad 2020-10-27 13:43:41.968835322 -0400
> @@ -1,3 +1,2018 @@
> QA output created by 263
> fsx -N 10000 -o 8192 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z
> -fsx -N 10000 -o 128000 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z
> +Seed set to 1
> +main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, disabling!
> +main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE, disabling!
> +main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE, disabling!
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u /root/xfstests-dev/tests/generic/263.out /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
> Ran: generic/263
> Failures: generic/263
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests generic/263
2020-10-27 19:59 ` Anna Schumaker
@ 2020-10-27 20:05 ` J. Bruce Fields
2020-10-27 20:14 ` J. Bruce Fields
2020-11-05 20:52 ` J. Bruce Fields
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2020-10-27 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anna Schumaker; +Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List, Jorge Mora
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:59:56PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> >
> > Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
> > READ_PLUS.
> >
> > I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
> > support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
> > the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
> > READ_PLUS.
>
> I just ran xfstests, and I'm seeing this too. The test passes using
> basic READ on v4.2, so there might be something farther down the log
> that diff is cutting off. I'll see if anything sticks out to me this
> week.
Thanks!
Also, wireshark doesn't seem to be parsing READ_PLUS replies correctly.
Cc'ing Jorge since he seems to have been the last to touch that code.
--b.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests generic/263
2020-10-27 20:05 ` J. Bruce Fields
@ 2020-10-27 20:14 ` J. Bruce Fields
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2020-10-27 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anna Schumaker; +Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List, Jorge Mora
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 04:05:07PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:59:56PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
> > > READ_PLUS.
> > >
> > > I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
> > > support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
> > > the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
> > > READ_PLUS.
> >
> > I just ran xfstests, and I'm seeing this too. The test passes using
> > basic READ on v4.2, so there might be something farther down the log
> > that diff is cutting off. I'll see if anything sticks out to me this
> > week.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Also, wireshark doesn't seem to be parsing READ_PLUS replies correctly.
> Cc'ing Jorge since he seems to have been the last to touch that code.
Oops, ignore me!
I was actually just running the wrong version of wireshark, with a
version built with Jorge's patch it's fine.
--b.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests generic/263
2020-10-27 19:59 ` Anna Schumaker
2020-10-27 20:05 ` J. Bruce Fields
@ 2020-11-05 20:52 ` J. Bruce Fields
2020-11-05 21:10 ` Anna Schumaker
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2020-11-05 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anna Schumaker; +Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:59:56PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> >
> > Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
> > READ_PLUS.
> >
> > I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
> > support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
> > the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
> > READ_PLUS.
>
> I just ran xfstests, and I'm seeing this too. The test passes using
> basic READ on v4.2, so there might be something farther down the log
> that diff is cutting off. I'll see if anything sticks out to me this
> week.
I think 091 is failing from the same cause, by the way. I haven't
investigated any more though.
--b.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests generic/263
2020-11-05 20:52 ` J. Bruce Fields
@ 2020-11-05 21:10 ` Anna Schumaker
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Anna Schumaker @ 2020-11-05 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: J. Bruce Fields; +Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:52 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:59:56PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
> > > READ_PLUS.
> > >
> > > I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
> > > support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
> > > the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
> > > READ_PLUS.
> >
> > I just ran xfstests, and I'm seeing this too. The test passes using
> > basic READ on v4.2, so there might be something farther down the log
> > that diff is cutting off. I'll see if anything sticks out to me this
> > week.
>
> I think 091 is failing from the same cause, by the way. I haven't
> investigated any more though.
These tests do a combination of directio reads and buffered reads. I
don't yet understand why this is a problem with READ_PLUS but works
fine for READ
Anna
>
> --b.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-11-05 21:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-10-27 17:49 xfstests generic/263 J. Bruce Fields
2020-10-27 19:59 ` Anna Schumaker
2020-10-27 20:05 ` J. Bruce Fields
2020-10-27 20:14 ` J. Bruce Fields
2020-11-05 20:52 ` J. Bruce Fields
2020-11-05 21:10 ` Anna Schumaker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox