From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4C77CBE for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:32:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403798F8035 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim2.fusionio.com (dkim2.fusionio.com [66.114.96.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id N9ZK21NV9lfiGBty (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.fusionio.com (unknown [10.101.1.160]) by dkim2.fusionio.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984579A04FA for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:32:17 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:32:14 -0400 From: Josef Bacik Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: [PATCH] xfstests 311: test fsync with dm flakey V2 Message-ID: <20130426223214.GA4117@localhost.localdomain> References: <1366899176-12876-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.com> <20130425224556.GS30622@dastard> <20130426002404.GN2631@localhost.localdomain> <20130426010829.GV30622@dastard> <20130426013237.GO2631@localhost.localdomain> <20130426021214.GX30622@dastard> <20130426193101.GR2631@localhost.localdomain> <20130426220521.GC30622@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130426220521.GC30622@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , Josef Bacik , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 04:05:22PM -0600, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 03:31:01PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 08:12:14PM -0600, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > Ok so I think I'll just make this test do all the iterations of the fsync tester > > > > with and without --nolockfs, since without --nolockfs I'm still seeing problems, > > > > does that sound reasonable? > > > > > > Sounds like a fine plan to me ;) > > > > > > > Btw its test 19 O_DIRECT that gives me a 0 length file, the buffered case is > > fine. The test just does a randomly sized sub-block sized write over and over > > again for a random number of times and fsync()'s in there randomly. The number > > is 3072 because that's the largest inline extent we can have in btrfs, I added > > it specifically to test our inline extent logging. Thanks, > > Interesting - it only runs fsync every 8 iterations of the loop. Can > you check that it is running enough loops to execute a fsync? > If the loop doesn't fsync it still fsyncs before the program exits. Side note I once wasted a week because Chris's fsync tester _didn't_ fsync() before exit so it would tell you a md5sum of a file that hadn't fsync()ed before the md5sum and I just assumed btrfs was broken. This test does not make this mistake for that reason :). Thanks, Josef _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs