From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o6QLhRIJ143374 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:43:28 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id EAB6812BA3E0 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id NZevENq06roUAscp for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C4E0229.5040002@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:46:17 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] Add test of quota accounting using fsx References: <1274710459-11446-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1274710459-11446-5-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <4C0FD43D.3040803@sandeen.net> <20100615095505.GB3347@quack.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20100615095505.GB3347@quack.suse.cz> 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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Jan Kara Cc: hch@infradead.org, ext4 development , xfs@oss.sgi.com On 06/15/2010 04:55 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 09-06-10 12:49:49, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Jan Kara wrote: >>> Run fsx (and also several fsx threads in parallel) and verify that >>> quota accounting is correct after they finish. >> >> Jan, I'm having trouble with this one on XFS for some reason, with our >> RHEL6 kernel and quota-3.17... > OK, attached is an improvement to the XFSQA tests after which all quota > tests pass for XFS just fine. > The second patch is just minor general improvement of _require_scratch > macro. > Could they be added to XFSQA repository? Thanks. Jan, I've got some ext4 failures reported on these, although I can't hit them, so not quite sure what's going on. In 231: +< fsgqa -- 760 0 0 3 0 0 +--- +> fsgqa -- 764 0 0 3 0 0 +14c14 +< fsgqa -- 760 0 0 3 0 0 +--- +> fsgqa -- 764 0 0 3 0 0 after the quotacheck & repquota we have 4 more blocks. Maybe this is due to my accounting of metadata blocks at write time, and not before ... would it be reasonable to put a sync call as the first line of check_usage() ? Also in 233: +< #501 -- 15392 0 0 998 0 0 +< #501 -- 15392 32000 32000 998 1000 1000 +--- +> #501 +- 32084 32000 32000 7days 998 1000 1000 +> #501 -- 32084 0 0 998 0 0 "7days" magically appeared after the quotacheck. Not sure what's going on there... Thanks, -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs