From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Leah Rumancik <leah.rumancik@gmail.com>,
Chandan Babu R <chandan.babu@oracle.com>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
fstests <fstests@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 0/9] xfs stable candidate patches for 5.10.y (from v5.13+)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 19:01:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YuHt65YWtkqLxlpv@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxi=VYa+86A7G3wqCX84n2Aezx2mYqfYrFTAVtSpYmeq_Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 09:17:47PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 11:21 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Darrick,
> >
> > This backport series contains mostly fixes from v5.14 release along
> > with three deferred patches from the joint 5.10/5.15 series [1].
> >
> > I ran the auto group 10 times on baseline (v5.10.131) and this series
> > with no observed regressions.
> >
> > I ran the recoveryloop group 100 times with no observed regressions.
> > The soak group run is in progress (10+) with no observed regressions
> > so far.
> >
> > I am somewhat disappointed from not seeing any improvement in the
> > results of the recoveryloop tests comapred to baseline.
> >
> > This is the summary of the recoveryloop test results on both baseline
> > and backport branch:
> >
> > generic,455, generic/457, generic/646: pass
> > generic/019, generic/475, generic/648: failing often in all config
<nod> I posted a couple of patchsets to fstests@ yesterday that might
help with these recoveryloop tests failing.
https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/165886493457.1585218.32410114728132213.stgit@magnolia/T/#t
https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/165886492580.1585149.760428651537119015.stgit@magnolia/T/#t
https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/165886491119.1585061.14285332087646848837.stgit@magnolia/T/#t
> > generic/388: failing often with reflink_1024
> > generic/388: failing at ~1/50 rate for any config
> > generic/482: failing often on V4 configs
> > generic/482: failing at ~1/100 rate for V5 configs
> > xfs/057: failing at ~1/200 rate for any config
> >
> > I observed no failures in soak group so far neither on baseline nor
> > on backport branch. I will update when I have more results.
> >
>
> Some more results after 1.5 days of spinning:
> 1. soak group reached 100 runs (x5 configs) with no failures
> 2. Ran all the tests also on debian/testing with xfsprogs 5.18 and
> observed a very similar fail/pass pattern as with xfsprogs 5.10
> 3. Started to run the 3 passing recoveryloop tests 1000 times and
> an interesting pattern emerged -
>
> generic/455 failed 3 times on baseline (out of 250 runs x 5 configs),
> but if has not failed on backport branch yet (700 runs x 5 configs).
>
> And it's not just failures, it's proper data corruptions, e.g.
> "testfile2.mark1 md5sum mismatched" (and not always on mark1)
Oh good!
>
> I will keep this loop spinning, but I am cautiously optimistic about
> this being an actual proof of bug fix.
>
> If these results don't change, I would be happy to get an ACK for the
> series so I can post it after the long soaking.
Patches 4-9 are an easy
Acked-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
--D
> Thanks,
> Amir.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-28 2:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-26 9:21 [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 0/9] xfs stable candidate patches for 5.10.y (from v5.13+) Amir Goldstein
2022-07-26 9:21 ` [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 1/9] xfs: refactor xfs_file_fsync Amir Goldstein
2022-07-26 9:21 ` [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 2/9] xfs: xfs_log_force_lsn isn't passed a LSN Amir Goldstein
2022-07-26 9:21 ` [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 3/9] xfs: prevent UAF in xfs_log_item_in_current_chkpt Amir Goldstein
2022-07-26 9:21 ` [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 4/9] xfs: fix log intent recovery ENOSPC shutdowns when inactivating inodes Amir Goldstein
2022-07-26 9:21 ` [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 5/9] xfs: force the log offline when log intent item recovery fails Amir Goldstein
2022-07-26 9:21 ` [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 6/9] xfs: hold buffer across unpin and potential shutdown processing Amir Goldstein
2022-07-26 9:21 ` [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 7/9] xfs: remove dead stale buf unpin handling code Amir Goldstein
2022-07-26 9:21 ` [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 8/9] xfs: logging the on disk inode LSN can make it go backwards Amir Goldstein
2022-07-26 9:21 ` [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 9/9] xfs: Enforce attr3 buffer recovery order Amir Goldstein
2022-07-27 19:17 ` [PATCH 5.10 CANDIDATE 0/9] xfs stable candidate patches for 5.10.y (from v5.13+) Amir Goldstein
2022-07-28 2:01 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2022-07-28 2:07 ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-07-28 9:39 ` Amir Goldstein
2022-07-29 16:15 ` Amir Goldstein
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=YuHt65YWtkqLxlpv@magnolia \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=chandan.babu@oracle.com \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=leah.rumancik@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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