From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 990C74C0420; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 15:20:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791213659; cv=none; b=TCh0ttBPVtkSc9RIYqyhIgx3nvCr0kkCJQn7rAw1wBmmMvFNte3NKyPJJTyXJtddpJ93sMDBuv5u0nrzUm5HGeMepLV8AhWffKap07vqCAQ/kEJESprF64xhonqRbvZSwItWwEo6dGcxIhx1FsSUNnt6tF2PXF5OKuUVgVBs9qY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791213659; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eYogfqbCFjpN3nb4+0jvS9G9bRa7bCK98tyzGW0sITk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=adeS/wE4/qwq++OfdqJHEXxko6G27qZQ0tAUc7oF9AQ8swnwwDWPGJpwR3nBD5fJv1nihueTF00YaER/6MU6tqvn6b0rLMqfXmEmymKZ3qe1xQC85S2w1RsRxzgWIdzXAOSFKqvTLHXdfUzOeLKojwCm1NgU2Ld8/9kARp5qqgs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Q7or3/kk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Q7or3/kk" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id D2B4B1F000FF; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 15:20:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791213657; bh=MZ8jWH01nNtxeW8Q3dRgNwgB1z9TT0AKTtsyR9tFoII=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=Q7or3/kk93LSD8sJc1XkbQ69kmT0gIUumyC1KrH/TOzPJs8tfIhVyTmfmOzu/KqdT bdMrqzfqoXcbN4sdqNr96onykXPQQDtx5Z736812SSpbOC9CZL7pHFh3Zfg5Gv66m3 mOiBnSCZSCH+GRjy+d4p30rFdOJEBVETXiVlj4rT+qqs7wAyn9jmVGUWokPTgJVYCp 0G0HI7lH7DQ7rSz4ovxB+trpD9Uvq4aH7JkWCOR8cAA77bxGyEmkzX9UehC2QjFNNz FOYk7CTC2ox2OEnaxuHmI98rCM6JtkszygLLUJPqdJ8fB+KCt7GCa+P1pt1q7rGeJx 9kA9r1KCyg3+w== Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2026 08:20:57 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Zorro Lang , fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] xfs/2304: version of generic/388 that run xfs_scrub -x for each iteration Message-ID: <20261005152057.GC2705364@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20260924100855.2734089-1-hch@lst.de> <20260924100855.2734089-10-hch@lst.de> <20260929015645.GL2705364@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20261005132522.GN26805@lst.de> <20261005145123.GB2705364@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20261005145615.GB2082@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20261005145615.GB2082@lst.de> On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 07:51:23AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > I'm ok with g388 running more slowly if it'll catch data checksum bugs > > and whatnot. I'm a little surprised that it doesn't already run > > _check_filesystems every loop iteration. > > Maybe we should patch that in first, and then XFS_VERIFY_FILE_DATA > magically does the right thing? I was about to repy "Sounds like a good idea for g388 and probably g475 as well" but then I remembered something from my notes. The two tests run without _check_filesystems on the assumption that accidental corruptions will multiply until either (a) the cycle_mount will fail or (b) the post-test _check_filesystems will have a lot to complain about. Doing the check every loop cycle reduces the number of log recoveries that we can do in a given SOAK_DURATION by a significant amount. What if we ran $XFS_IO_PROG -c verifymedia once per loop if XFS_VERIFY_FILE_DATA? That would avoid a full xfs_{repair,scrub} run (+ extra mount cycle) but catch problems earlier. --D