From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCD97F47 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 06:18:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35E18F8035 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 04:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.nomovok.com (mail.nomovok.com [83.150.122.238]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id DIblsqjWoYgxXPZU (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 04:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.111] (host22-235-dynamic.248-95-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [95.248.235.22]) by mail.nomovok.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4664AE031 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:18:02 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <55FFE769.7090802@nomovok.com> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:18:01 +0200 From: Angelo Dureghello MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfstests, bad generic tests 009 and 308 References: <55FC3E0E.9060506@nomovok.com> <20150918224412.GE26895@dastard> <55FFE665.7040004@nomovok.com> In-Reply-To: <55FFE665.7040004@nomovok.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Sry, in my previous mail please s/16M/16G. Was a typo. I am using an SD card with test partitions 8G and 16G. Best regards Angelo On 21/09/2015 13:13, Angelo Dureghello wrote: > Hi Dave, > > many thanks for the support. Sorry for the double mail, after > first registering mails was not accepted, so i re-registered > with a company mail. > > > On 19/09/2015 00:44, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:38:38PM +0200, Angelo Dureghello wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> working on arm (32bit arch), kernel 4.1.6. >> Is this a new platform? >> >> Also, we need to know what compiler you are using, because we know >> that certain versions of gcc miscompile XFS kernel code on arm >> (4.6, 4.7 and certain versions of 4.8 are suspect) due to a >> combination of compiler mis-optimisations and kernel bugs in the >> arm 64 bit division asm implementation. >> >> As such, it would be worthwhile trying gcc-4.9 and a 4.3-rc1 kernel >> to see if the problems still occur. > > I am using actually gcc-linaro-4.9-2015.05-x86_64_arm-linux-gnueabihf > >>> Looking to find the reason of some bad results on xfstests, >>> >>> -tests/generic/009 >>> ------------------ >>> i get several "all holes" messages >>> >>> generic/009 [ 842.949643] run fstests generic/009 at 2015-09-18 >>> 15:29:36 >>> - output mismatch (see >>> /home/angelo/xfstests/results//generic/009.out.bad) >>> --- tests/generic/009.out 2015-09-17 10:54:06.689071257 +0000 >>> +++ /home/angelo/xfstests/results//generic/009.out.bad >>> 2015-09-18 15:29:41.412784177 +0000 >>> @@ -1,79 +1,45 @@ >>> QA output created by 009 >>> 1. into a hole >>> -0: [0..7]: hole >>> -1: [8..23]: unwritten >>> -2: [24..39]: hole >>> +0: [0..39]: hole >>> daa100df6e6711906b61c9ab5aa16032 >>> >>> also some other tests are giving the same bad notices. >> Can you attach the entire >> /home/angelo/xfstests/results//generic/009.out.bad file? I'm not >> sure which of the tests this output comes from, so I need to >> confirm which specific operations are resulting in errors. > Sure, i completed the whole generic + shared + xfs tests. > In total i have 38 errors. And trying now one by one to understand the > reason. > I attached the 009 output. > >>> -tests/generic/308 >>> ------------------ >>> >>> I have now: CONFIG_LBDAF=y >>> >>> In my target device this test creates a 16 Terabytes file 308.tempfile >>> >>> -rw------- 1 root root 17592186044415 Sep 18 09:40 testfile.308 >>> >>> While "df" is not complaining about: >>> >>> /dev/mmcblk0p5 8378368 45252 8333116 1% /media/p5 >>> >>> and next rm -f on it hands the cpu to 95%, forever. >>> >>> This issue seems known from a long time, as it has been discussed in >>> the thread: >>> >>> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00273.html >>> >>> I was wondering if there was any special reason why the Jeff patch has >>> never been finally applied. >> MAX_LFS_FILESIZE on 32 bits is 8TB, whereas xfs supports 16TB file >> size on 32 bit systems. The specific issue this test fixed was >> committed in commit 8695d27 ("xfs: fix infinite loop at >> xfs_vm_writepage on 32bit system") >> >> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-05/msg00447.html >> >> And, as you may notice now, generic/308 is the test case for the >> exact problem the above commit fixed. > > I have recent git version of xfstests, but generic/308 shows > > #! /bin/bash > # FS QA Test No. 308 > # > # Regression test for commit: > # f17722f ext4: Fix max file size and logical block counting of extent > format file > >> Can you find out exactly where the CPU is looping? sysrq-l will >> help, as will running 'perf top -U -g' to show you the hot code >> paths, and so on. > > Strangely, the patch > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-05/msg00447.html is already included > in the xfs that comes with this 4.1.6 kernel, while only applying > previous > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00273.html patch from Jeff > fix the issue and > test 308 get passed. > > > I have a 16MB partition, and wondering why xfs allows from test 308 to > create a 16TB file. > > -rw------- 1 root root 17592186044415 Sep 18 09:40 testfile.308 > > > When at 308 test exit, rm is invoked, system get blocked in infinite > loop. > > root 5445 0.7 0.2 3760 3180 ttyS0 S+ 10:53 0:00 > /bin/bash /home/angelo/xfstests/tests/generic/308 > root 5674 100 0.0 1388 848 ttyS0 R+ 10:53 0:27 rm -f > /media/p5/testfile.308 > > Can't install actually perf-tools for some debian repos issue, but let > me know, i will enable sysrq > if needed. > > Best regards > Angelo > > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave. > > > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- Best regards, Angelo Dureghello _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs