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 797CE7F75 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:20:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABE78F8033 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id BNzBbiL5CUDIz561 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:20:13 -0400 From: Brian Foster Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] clean up collapse range and handle post-eof delalloc Message-ID: <20140911152012.GB54638@bfoster.bfoster> References: <1410355231-50495-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <20140911044243.GA10111@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140911044243.GA10111@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: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:42:43PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 09:20:26AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Here's v2 of the collapse clean up. We refactor a bit more via the > > insertion of patch 3, otherwise it's similar to v1. This will see some > > continued testing, but it survived ~500m fsx operations overnight. > > > > Brian > > I'm not sure about the invalidation patch now. On a 1k block size > filesystem, generic/127 fails with: > > +ltp/fsx -q -l 262144 -o 65536 -S 191110531 -N 100000 -R -W fsx_std_nommap > +collapse range: 1000 to 3000 > +do_collapse_range: fallocate: Device or resource busy > > which indicates we had an invalidation failure. This is probably > exposing some other bug, but I haven't had time to look into it yet > so I don't know. > Yeah, I can reproduce this as well, thanks. I think you're referring to the xfs_free_file_space() patch (5/5)..? FWIW, I don't see the problem without that patch, so it appears that the full pagecache truncate is still covering up a problem somewhere. I'll try to dig into it... Brian > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs