From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com (szxga07-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDBEF1AD270; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 09:31:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.35 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725355868; cv=none; b=gxmP2ZYfvRWYY6S7muEvrHMEqIj7Wki168h/fVMc59HSibsO0qPwx3TuLlwntAaCH0SYB8aV6AnPJEDObKGvS75YiTvyxs0LlVKh12zf6/U1Nrhn9a+q4mVUSrpbG7+U/sR4PjgaeeIuYFkW+Z8fLYqrgH2EV0um4HHmLkstB6o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725355868; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PYhIqVvzMsw0JHCrReQqqZXNffj3qhC/OgDj3vanCQ0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:CC:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Q3rEzXtGn1Bzo7+Xv8/8XX7g1LjZfz0dOrCgilKQRww4v2DLzhfsZACfNQIWHS62h2uScHD+ZAOffs4QCQnRo8aBXH7kLf1cXJzjx25Yc+0LMhCQ22VZgkvPJyxn78a8vZ4orVXj6t+2o85GG3cuFZH1LcgO3lhkFjw2N+PmFQk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.35 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.163]) by szxga07-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WygN24gl2z1S9fC; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:30:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf100017.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.16]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3702718002B; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:31:02 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.176.88] (10.174.176.88) by kwepemf100017.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:31:01 +0800 Message-ID: <1ebbecbb-bbd3-4a1a-b07c-65f8d1f1ef9d@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:31:00 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [linus:master] [xfs] ca6448aed4: xfstests.xfs.556.fail From: Zizhi Wo To: kernel test robot CC: , , , Chandan Babu R , "Darrick J. Wong" , References: <202409031358.2c34ad37-oliver.sang@intel.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.180) To kwepemf100017.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.16) 在 2024/9/3 17:16, Zizhi Wo 写道: > Hi > > 在 2024/9/3 13:18, kernel test robot 写道: >> >> >> Hello, >> >> kernel test robot noticed "xfstests.xfs.556.fail" on: >> >> commit: ca6448aed4f10ad88eba79055f181eb9a589a7b3 ("xfs: Fix missing >> interval for missing_owner in xfs fsmap") >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master >> >> [test failed on linus/master >> 431c1646e1f86b949fa3685efc50b660a364c2b6] >> [test failed on linux-next/master >> 985bf40edf4343dcb04c33f58b40b4a85c1776d4] >> >> in testcase: xfstests >> version: xfstests-x86_64-d9423fec-1_20240826 >> with following parameters: >> >>     disk: 4HDD >>     fs: xfs >>     test: xfs-556 >> >> >> >> compiler: gcc-12 >> test machine: 4 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1225 v5 @ 3.30GHz >> (Skylake) with 16G memory >> >> (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace) >> >> >> >> >> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new >> version of >> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags >> | Reported-by: kernel test robot >> | Closes: >> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202409031358.2c34ad37-oliver.sang@intel.com >> >> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export TEST_DIR=/fs/sda1 >> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export TEST_DEV=/dev/sda1 >> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export FSTYP=xfs >> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export SCRATCH_MNT=/fs/scratch >> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 mkdir /fs/scratch -p >> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sda4 >> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export SCRATCH_LOGDEV=/dev/sda2 >> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export >> SCRATCH_XFS_LIST_METADATA_FIELDS=u3.sfdir3.hdr.parent.i4 >> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export SCRATCH_XFS_LIST_FUZZ_VERBS=random >> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 echo xfs/556 >> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 ./check xfs/556 >> FSTYP         -- xfs (debug) >> PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 lkp-skl-d06 >> 6.11.0-rc5-00007-gca6448aed4f1 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Sun Sep  1 >> 16:52:26 CST 2024 >> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f /dev/sda4 >> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/sda4 /fs/scratch >> >> xfs/556       - output mismatch (see >> /lkp/benchmarks/xfstests/results//xfs/556.out.bad) >>      --- tests/xfs/556.out    2024-08-26 19:09:50.000000000 +0000 >>      +++ /lkp/benchmarks/xfstests/results//xfs/556.out.bad >> 2024-09-01 09:28:17.532120817 +0000 >>      @@ -1,12 +1,21 @@ >>       QA output created by 556 >>       Scrub for injected media error (single threaded) >>      +Corruption: disk offset 106496: media error in unknown owner. >> (phase6.c line 400) >>       Unfixable Error: SCRATCH_MNT/a: media error at data offset 2FSB >> length 1FSB. >>       SCRATCH_MNT: unfixable errors found: 1 >>      +SCRATCH_MNT: corruptions found: 1 >>      +SCRATCH_MNT: Unmount and run xfs_repair. >>      ... >>      (Run 'diff -u /lkp/benchmarks/xfstests/tests/xfs/556.out >> /lkp/benchmarks/xfstests/results//xfs/556.out.bad'  to see the entire >> diff) >> Ran: xfs/556 >> Failures: xfs/556 >> Failed 1 of 1 tests >> >> >> >> >> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at: >> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240903/202409031358.2c34ad37-oliver.sang@intel.com >> >> > > I attempted to reproduce the issue using the script provided in this > link: > https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240903/202409031358.2c34ad37-oliver.sang@intel.com/repro-script. > but I discovered that it might not be related to my patch. After I > reverted my own fsmap-related patches locally and ran the test case > using this script, it still failed. > > I'm not sure if it's due to an issue with my own environment or if there > are other factors I haven't considered. > > However, I still found the current problems of fsmap, and I am not sure > whether it is related to these two.[1][2] > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/all/550c038b-d931-4d00-9ebd-5c903e5ddf07@huawei.com/ > [2] > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240826031005.2493150-1-wozizhi@huawei.com/ > However, I noticed that if I make the changes mentioned in [1], the local error message becomes consistent with the one observed without this patch applied. I'm not certain if this aligns with the expected behavior. > Thanks, > Zizhi Wo > >> >