public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant.
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:31:36 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <506A0BB8.8090204@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5069F9B0.50804@redhat.com>

On 10/01/12 15:14, Brian Foster wrote:
<deletes by mt>
> Heads up... I was doing some testing against my eofblocks set rebased
> against this patchset and I'm reproducing a new 273 failure. The failure
> bisects down to this patch.
>
> With the bisection, I'm running xfs top of tree plus the following patch:
>
> xfs: only update the last_sync_lsn when a transaction completes
>
> ... and patches 1-6 of this set on top of that. i.e.:
>
> xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant.
> xfs: Bring some sanity to log unmounting
> xfs: sync work is now only periodic log work
> xfs: don't run the sync work if the filesystem is read-only
> xfs: rationalise xfs_mount_wq users
> xfs: xfs_syncd_stop must die
> xfs: only update the last_sync_lsn when a transaction completes
> xfs: Make inode32 a remountable option
>
> This is on a 16p (according to /proc/cpuinfo) x86-64 system with 32GB
> RAM. The test and scratch volumes are both 500GB lvm volumes on top of a
> hardware raid. I haven't looked into this at all yet but I wanted to
> drop it on the list for now. The 273 output is attached.
>
> Brian

  <deletes by mt>
>
>
> 273.out.bad
>
>
> QA output created by 273
> ------------------------------
> start the workload
> ------------------------------
> _porter 31 not complete
> _porter 79 not complete
> _porter 149 not complete_porter 74 not complete
> _porter 161 not complete
> _porter 54 not complete
> _porter 98 not complete
> _porter 99 not complete
> _porter 167 not complete
> _porter 76 not complete
> _porter 45 not complete
> _porter 152 not complete
> _porter 173 not complete_porter 24 not complete

  <deletes by mt>

I see it too on a single machine. It looks like an interaction between 
patch 06 and the "...update the last_sync_lsn...".

I like the "...update the last_sync_lsn ..." patch because it fixes the 
"xlog_verify_tail_lsn: tail wrapped" and "xlog_verify_tail_lsn: ran out 
of log space" messages that I am getting on that machine.

--Mark.

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

  reply	other threads:[~2012-10-01 21:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-28  4:44 [PATCH V3 00/13] xfs: remove the xfssyncd mess Dave Chinner
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 01/13] xfs: xfs_syncd_stop must die Dave Chinner
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 02/13] xfs: rationalise xfs_mount_wq users Dave Chinner
2012-09-28 12:27   ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 03/13] xfs: don't run the sync work if the filesystem is read-only Dave Chinner
2012-09-28 12:27   ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 04/13] xfs: sync work is now only periodic log work Dave Chinner
2012-09-28 12:31   ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 05/13] xfs: Bring some sanity to log unmounting Dave Chinner
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 06/13] xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant Dave Chinner
2012-09-28 12:34   ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-01 17:44     ` Ben Myers
2012-10-02  0:14       ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-02 19:39         ` Ben Myers
2012-09-28 21:44   ` Mark Tinguely
2012-10-01 20:14   ` Brian Foster
2012-10-01 21:31     ` Mark Tinguely [this message]
2012-10-02  0:10     ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-02  0:44       ` Brian Foster
2012-10-02 13:01         ` Brian Foster
2012-10-02 20:51           ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-02 21:13             ` Brian Foster
2012-10-04  0:05             ` Ben Myers
2012-10-04  1:07               ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-02 13:22       ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-10-02 20:24         ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-02 20:25     ` Ben Myers
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 07/13] xfs: syncd workqueue is no more Dave Chinner
2012-09-28 12:35   ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-28 18:17   ` Mark Tinguely
2012-10-01 17:54     ` Ben Myers
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 08/13] xfs: xfs_sync_fsdata is redundant Dave Chinner
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 09/13] xfs: move xfs_quiesce_attr() into xfs_super.c Dave Chinner
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 10/13] xfs: xfs_quiesce_attr() should quiesce the log like unmount Dave Chinner
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 11/13] xfs: rename xfs_sync.[ch] to xfs_icache.[ch] Dave Chinner
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 12/13] xfs: move inode locking functions to xfs_inode.c Dave Chinner
2012-09-28  4:44 ` [PATCH 13/13] xfs: remove xfs_iget.c Dave Chinner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=506A0BB8.8090204@sgi.com \
    --to=tinguely@sgi.com \
    --cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox