Re: [PATCH] xfstests: enhance ltp/fsx with a timeout option

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: enhance ltp/fsx with a timeout option

[Rich Johnston]

David,

Thanks for submitting this patch. I like the addition of the -T option.

I used test 263 to verify that fsx works as expected with the new -T and 
the existing -N options.  With the -T option of course, test 263 will 
fail.  I don't suggest that we change existing tests but add new tests 
which use the new -T option. Do you have a new test which you intend to 
use the -T option that can be submitted with this patch?

Thanks
--Rich

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

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: enhance ltp/fsx with a timeout option

[David Sterba]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 12:31:27PM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote:
> I used test 263 to verify that fsx works as expected with the new -T and the
> existing -N options.  With the -T option of course, test 263 will fail.  I
> don't suggest that we change existing tests but add new tests which use the
> new -T option. Do you have a new test which you intend to use the -T option
> that can be submitted with this patch?

I understand that changing behaviour of existing checks is not desirable.

The -T option to fsx was inspired by the test we used to hunt a bug at
3.8-rc time where 50 concurrent direct io fsx jobs triggered the bug in
about 10 minutes or it was considered fine.

fsx -q xxxf$x -Z -R -W -r 4096 -w 4096
(http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/22447)

I'll send this test integrated into xfstests harness.

david

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

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: enhance ltp/fsx with a timeout option

[Dave Chinner]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 07:25:25PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 12:31:27PM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote:
> > I used test 263 to verify that fsx works as expected with the new -T and the
> > existing -N options.  With the -T option of course, test 263 will fail.  I
> > don't suggest that we change existing tests but add new tests which use the
> > new -T option. Do you have a new test which you intend to use the -T option
> > that can be submitted with this patch?
> 
> I understand that changing behaviour of existing checks is not desirable.
> 
> The -T option to fsx was inspired by the test we used to hunt a bug at
> 3.8-rc time where 50 concurrent direct io fsx jobs triggered the bug in
> about 10 minutes or it was considered fine.
> 
> fsx -q xxxf$x -Z -R -W -r 4096 -w 4096
> (http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/22447)

fsx is already run with those exact parameters as part of test 091.

> I'll send this test integrated into xfstests harness.

There's little point in adding duplicate tests that only differ in
runtime. It does not improve test coverage at all and only increases
the overall test harness run time.

If you want to run 091 for longer, add support for the new
LOAD_FACTOR variable so you can increase the number of ops it runs
for. Alternatively, make fsx use both -N ops and -T time
simultaneously, and stop the execution whenever the first criteria
expires. That way you can bound the test run time, and just use
LOAD_FACTOR to make sure it runs for the desired amount out time....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

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