Question about xfstests xfs/122 and xfs/253

Question about xfstests xfs/122 and xfs/253

[scameron]

Hi,

I am running xfstests mostly just to exercise a low level driver, and I'm
seeing failures on tests xfs/122 and xfs/253.

I'm using xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump cloned fresh from the git repos listed
here: http://xfs.org/index.php/Getting_the_latest_source_code
git hashes:
xfstests: 45d1fac1303acfa102384f48111dc3a458b93493
xfsprogs: 03e956b25243bf4aac034275f89a0f3f2712b79a
xfsdump: b1d6979f1fae82acc79d27cf0add4d55da6d83cc

I'm using kernel 3.16-rc1 on RHEL 6.5 on x86_64.

I would expect that specific versions of xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump
are meant to go with specific kernel versions, though it is not clear
to me how to match these up in the general case.  I guessed that
"latest of everything" would have a reasonable chance of being a
matched set.

I'm running it by: "./check -g auto"

with configs/localhost.config:

[root@localhost xfstests]# cat configs/localhost.config
TEST_DEV=/dev/sdc
TEST_DIR=/mnt/test
SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sdb
SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch

I'm not very familiar with these tests, but it looks like xfs/122 is checking
that some structure sizes specific to xfs are correct, and I'm struggling to
see how a low level driver would break that test without breaking a lot of
other stuff, so I'm thinking I can ignore that one (maybe the test is broken?)
But I figured I should ask here in case I'm not correctly understanding what it's
trying to test.

xfs/253, seems to be testing some kind of filename hashing stuff.

Do these failures seem plausibly attributable to a flaw in a low level driver,
or are these failures known issues with xfs or with the tests, or is there
something else I might be doing wrong?

(It occurs to me now I should try the tests with a different driver and
hardware and see how it behaves.)


[root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/122.out 122.out.bad | diffstat
 122.out.bad |   38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
[root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad | diffstat
 253.out.bad |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
[root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad 
--- ../../tests/xfs/253.out	2014-06-16 10:51:35.881521766 -0500
+++ 253.out.bad	2014-06-16 18:01:13.862884730 -0500
@@ -1,2 +1,4 @@
 QA output created by 253
 Disciplyne of silence is goed.
+mount: Structure needs cleaning
+umount: /dev/sdb: not mounted
[root@localhost xfs]#

Also, I noticed a few tests were not run, I presume that is not out of the ordinary.

xfs/189	 [not run] noattr2 mount option not supported on /dev/sdb
xfs/190 1s ... 1s
xfs/191	 [not run] no mkfs support for NFS v4 ACLs
xfs/194 1s ... 1s
xfs/195	 [not run] fsgqa user not defined.
xfs/196 5s ... 5s
xfs/197	 [not run] This test is only valid on 32 bit machines

And a few others skipped as well.

Thanks,

-- steve

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: Question about xfstests xfs/122 and xfs/253

[Brian Foster]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 08:41:05AM -0500, scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am running xfstests mostly just to exercise a low level driver, and I'm
> seeing failures on tests xfs/122 and xfs/253.
> 
> I'm using xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump cloned fresh from the git repos listed
> here: http://xfs.org/index.php/Getting_the_latest_source_code
> git hashes:
> xfstests: 45d1fac1303acfa102384f48111dc3a458b93493
> xfsprogs: 03e956b25243bf4aac034275f89a0f3f2712b79a
> xfsdump: b1d6979f1fae82acc79d27cf0add4d55da6d83cc
> 
> I'm using kernel 3.16-rc1 on RHEL 6.5 on x86_64.
> 
> I would expect that specific versions of xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump
> are meant to go with specific kernel versions, though it is not clear
> to me how to match these up in the general case.  I guessed that
> "latest of everything" would have a reasonable chance of being a
> matched set.
> 
> I'm running it by: "./check -g auto"
> 
> with configs/localhost.config:
> 
> [root@localhost xfstests]# cat configs/localhost.config
> TEST_DEV=/dev/sdc
> TEST_DIR=/mnt/test
> SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sdb
> SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch
> 
> I'm not very familiar with these tests, but it looks like xfs/122 is checking
> that some structure sizes specific to xfs are correct, and I'm struggling to
> see how a low level driver would break that test without breaking a lot of
> other stuff, so I'm thinking I can ignore that one (maybe the test is broken?)
> But I figured I should ask here in case I'm not correctly understanding what it's
> trying to test.
> 

xfs/122 fails for me as well. I guess I never noticed it before because
it depends on indent. It looks like the output file (122.out) contains a
bunch of hardcoded field offsets and structure sizes, so perhaps it's
just out of date. I'm not familiar with the objective of this test.

> xfs/253, seems to be testing some kind of filename hashing stuff.
> 

This one tests metadump and restore, name obfuscation in particular it
appears. It passes on a quick test for me with fairly recent code.

> Do these failures seem plausibly attributable to a flaw in a low level driver,
> or are these failures known issues with xfs or with the tests, or is there
> something else I might be doing wrong?
> 
> (It occurs to me now I should try the tests with a different driver and
> hardware and see how it behaves.)
> 

Probably a good idea. ;)

> 
> [root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/122.out 122.out.bad | diffstat
>  122.out.bad |   38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> [root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad | diffstat
>  253.out.bad |    2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> [root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad 
> --- ../../tests/xfs/253.out	2014-06-16 10:51:35.881521766 -0500
> +++ 253.out.bad	2014-06-16 18:01:13.862884730 -0500
> @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@
>  QA output created by 253
>  Disciplyne of silence is goed.
> +mount: Structure needs cleaning
> +umount: /dev/sdb: not mounted
> [root@localhost xfs]#
> 

I'm guessing the dump or restore failed to properly create the metadump
image or restore it correctly. You probably want to try this on
something known to be working.

> Also, I noticed a few tests were not run, I presume that is not out of the ordinary.
> 
> xfs/189	 [not run] noattr2 mount option not supported on /dev/sdb
> xfs/190 1s ... 1s
> xfs/191	 [not run] no mkfs support for NFS v4 ACLs
> xfs/194 1s ... 1s
> xfs/195	 [not run] fsgqa user not defined.
> xfs/196 5s ... 5s
> xfs/197	 [not run] This test is only valid on 32 bit machines
> 
> And a few others skipped as well.
> 

This is generally normal. Tests will detect dependencies and/or settings
and skip running if not applicable as opposed to causing failures for
things that are problems with the test environment.

Brian

> Thanks,
> 
> -- steve
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: Question about xfstests xfs/122 and xfs/253

[Dave Chinner]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:57:18AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 08:41:05AM -0500, scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am running xfstests mostly just to exercise a low level driver, and I'm
> > seeing failures on tests xfs/122 and xfs/253.
> > 
> > I'm using xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump cloned fresh from the git repos listed
> > here: http://xfs.org/index.php/Getting_the_latest_source_code
> > git hashes:
> > xfstests: 45d1fac1303acfa102384f48111dc3a458b93493
> > xfsprogs: 03e956b25243bf4aac034275f89a0f3f2712b79a
> > xfsdump: b1d6979f1fae82acc79d27cf0add4d55da6d83cc
> > 
> > I'm using kernel 3.16-rc1 on RHEL 6.5 on x86_64.
> > 
> > I would expect that specific versions of xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump
> > are meant to go with specific kernel versions, though it is not clear
> > to me how to match these up in the general case.  I guessed that
> > "latest of everything" would have a reasonable chance of being a
> > matched set.
> > 
> > I'm running it by: "./check -g auto"
> > 
> > with configs/localhost.config:
> > 
> > [root@localhost xfstests]# cat configs/localhost.config
> > TEST_DEV=/dev/sdc
> > TEST_DIR=/mnt/test
> > SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sdb
> > SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch
> > 
> > I'm not very familiar with these tests, but it looks like xfs/122 is checking
> > that some structure sizes specific to xfs are correct, and I'm struggling to
> > see how a low level driver would break that test without breaking a lot of
> > other stuff, so I'm thinking I can ignore that one (maybe the test is broken?)
> > But I figured I should ask here in case I'm not correctly understanding what it's
> > trying to test.
> > 
> 
> xfs/122 fails for me as well. I guess I never noticed it before because
> it depends on indent. It looks like the output file (122.out) contains a
> bunch of hardcoded field offsets and structure sizes, so perhaps it's
> just out of date. I'm not familiar with the objective of this test.

They are the sizes and offsets of on-disk structures. I get a
_not_run here because the test program fails to compile, which is
probably why I've not noticed that it might be failing. I'll look
into it that failure here.

FWIW, posting the diff of the failure will tell us if it's an
important failure or not, or whether it's just that we've removed a
bunch of typedefs and so the program output is not exactly the same
as expected....

> > xfs/253, seems to be testing some kind of filename hashing stuff.
> > 
> 
> This one tests metadump and restore, name obfuscation in particular it
> appears. It passes on a quick test for me with fairly recent code.
> 
> > Do these failures seem plausibly attributable to a flaw in a low level driver,
> > or are these failures known issues with xfs or with the tests, or is there
> > something else I might be doing wrong?
> > 
> > (It occurs to me now I should try the tests with a different driver and
> > hardware and see how it behaves.)
> > 
> 
> Probably a good idea. ;)
> 
> > 
> > [root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/122.out 122.out.bad | diffstat
> >  122.out.bad |   38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > [root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad | diffstat
> >  253.out.bad |    2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > [root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad 
> > --- ../../tests/xfs/253.out	2014-06-16 10:51:35.881521766 -0500
> > +++ 253.out.bad	2014-06-16 18:01:13.862884730 -0500
> > @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@
> >  QA output created by 253
> >  Disciplyne of silence is goed.
> > +mount: Structure needs cleaning
> > +umount: /dev/sdb: not mounted

What's the dmesg output?

> > xfs/189  [not run] noattr2 mount option not supported on /dev/sdb

That implies you are testing with MKFS_OPTION="-m crc=1", because
only CRC enabled filesystems reject the noattr2 mount option. Is
that correct?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs