public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
	ltp@lists.linux.it
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] nfs/nfs08.sh: Add test for NFS cache invalidation
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:43:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230426174302.GB3089461@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230425134845.GA3014439@pevik>

Hi all,

> > Hi!
> > > v4 [1] of not yet upstreamed patch accidentally broke cache invalidation
> > > for directories by clearing NFS_INO_INVALID_DATA inappropriately.
> > > Although it was fixed in v5 [2] thus kernel was not actually broken,
> > > it's better to prevent this in the future.

> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/167649314509.15170.15885497881041431304@noble.neil.brown.name/
> > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/167943762461.8008.3152357340238024342@noble.neil.brown.name/

> ...
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/testcases/network/nfs/nfs_stress/nfs08.sh
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> > > +#!/bin/sh
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> > > +# Copyright (c) 2023 Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > > +# Test reproducer for broken NFS cache invalidation for directories.
> > > +# Based on reproducer from Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
> > > +
> > > +TST_TESTFUNC="do_test"
> > > +
> > > +do_test()
> > > +{
> > > +	tst_res TINFO "testing NFS cache invalidation for directories"
> > > +
> > > +	touch 1
> > > +	EXPECT_PASS 'ls | grep 1'
> > > +
> > > +	touch 2
> > > +	EXPECT_PASS 'ls | grep 2'
> > > +}

> > I do not get how this actually detects case invalidation, it probably
> > does, but slightly better description how this actually excercises the
> > case would help.

> The behavior is:

> "touch 1" asks for data invalidation (new file created), therefore following ls
> (EXPECT_PASS 'ls | grep 1') fills the cache.  "touch 2" should again ask for
> data invalidation, but it the unfixed v4 version of the patch it did not
> resulted to cache invalidation.  Therefore second ls (EXPECT_PASS 'ls | grep 2')
> shows just 1, but not 2. i.e. in the affected kernel only second ls failed,
> but obviously both should be checked (nobody knows how another bug on cache
> invalidation will behave).

> I can add the description above to the commit message and adjust the comment in
> the file.

Merged with the updated description.

Kind regards,
Petr

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

      reply	other threads:[~2023-04-26 17:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-12  8:21 [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] nfs/nfs08.sh: Add test for NFS cache invalidation Petr Vorel
2023-04-12  8:29 ` Petr Vorel
2023-04-25 13:12 ` Cyril Hrubis
2023-04-25 13:48   ` Petr Vorel
2023-04-26 17:43     ` Petr Vorel [this message]

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=20230426174302.GB3089461@pevik \
    --to=pvorel@suse.cz \
    --cc=chrubis@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    /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