From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:24643 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755323AbdEROcY (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 May 2017 10:32:24 -0400 Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v4IEWNg6030306 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:32:23 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4IEWMvI012543 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:32:23 GMT Received: from abhmp0003.oracle.com (abhmp0003.oracle.com [141.146.116.9]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v4IEWKU1020101 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 14:32:21 GMT Subject: Re: Do we need a way to force xfsaild to run? References: <20170518142159.gkr6be4dralc6xiq@eorzea.usersys.redhat.com> From: Shan Hai Message-ID: <2a1d273d-da74-bdc9-2c8d-06311cb77d4f@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 22:32:11 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170518142159.gkr6be4dralc6xiq@eorzea.usersys.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On 2017年05月18日 22:21, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > Hi, > > This is something I was thinking while working on that buffer retry stuff. > > Currently, we have no way to force xfsaild to run, and I was wondering if > somebody has any opinion if it would be useful to create a new xfsctl, to start > xfsaild for debugging purposes, using xfs_io to trigger it. > > My specific use case is while testing the code I've been working on for the > buffer retry stuff, where, I need to wait xfsaild to run to trigger the bug, > adding a way to force it, in this case at least, would be useful for me, I could > work on that, but only if somebody else can actually think this to be > interesting, adding a new xfsctl just for 'me' does not sound worth the time :) For the debugging purpose how about mkfs with a small size of log for instance 50MB and then use benchmark tools like fs_mark to fill the log quickly(write lots of small files instead of a single huge file), then the xfsaild will run frequently :) Thanks Shan Hai > Anybody else might have interest on it or maybe this is just a waste of time? > > Cheers >