From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD857C282CB for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 19:48:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9312177B for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 19:48:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1549655315; bh=KNERTjDVUqv3oD9vmd4RdL8U4IgiD5LDxzY/mjjskfQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=iI53y8+jo66Tijc5fAi3wzaqrrvFr9CXPogZIjLnlSE9ADTvO23Os6vG4somVeh+q W0KaGJWOgOFyhxuq2vZlKF0m0ggBt/oa611l4auKcZkWfuPNyMzmgRAF/TE4r6DsKI xUlppFB7v3cTXwFKRzZ+Lq8jXffe97qxwkpryaL8= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726522AbfBHTsf (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:48:35 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f196.google.com ([209.85.210.196]:46303 "EHLO mail-pf1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726018AbfBHTse (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:48:34 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f196.google.com with SMTP id c73so2143582pfe.13; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 11:48:33 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=mXdP+aHq+HHn+O0YIMq4Ei2tqZD3yQMMR1ia+3u6KI8=; b=sA+PuVTDtJwFqeaORJ1fqnhXxLCzAMBmB2eQF4V17Tjz7cn0GlJIaaM4L6bLoN2uaK OMoAvMPpCPyG4mLjbF4iV69xpw0dzhgINqFAwW6GpdrJYTVIK9BUuoVQkozIrpAZpZ9M 1RGLSZy0QsAxMCkcIIJMJcanSP1Z2pcc+zW5WqFdhOBQYGJ4EavZXaM/qpCGKZNXCvK5 vAO/wz7ptMGkUcQNQgTsZQXPagGW4xIVQBaLNz+Niw5bE8M5MNEOacRd6FwjtPhXI4DV R71LFTqCFIvC/TOEEkLEgVgP7mTomGYRYn+IP/rvbo9F7xxnrCUnHkTjuCnMECxvD4Y5 10lQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaeUdXPt6R/wcUkItDGfnBxvZfgj8Q7T452vjL9N8dHfw4QBgFG DQjH2dQYhylM2HMUyajrWMY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYDY+HYnGiPfxyN/usFogUYeRyTWSP10kHlD4cxWfHCCQKJgv1QXfly5lS2czLnP3RGg7UDrw== X-Received: by 2002:a62:2fc3:: with SMTP id v186mr23883270pfv.82.1549655313240; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 11:48:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from garbanzo.do-not-panic.com (c-73-71-40-85.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.71.40.85]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h10sm2789814pfj.89.2019.02.08.11.48.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 08 Feb 2019 11:48:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by garbanzo.do-not-panic.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 08 Feb 2019 11:48:29 -0800 Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:48:29 -0800 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, amir73il@gmail.com, hch@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] xfs: stable fixes for v4.19.y Message-ID: <20190208194829.GJ11489@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> References: <20190204165427.23607-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20190205220655.GF14116@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190205220655.GF14116@dastard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 09:06:55AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 08:54:17AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > Kernel stable team, > > > > here is a v2 respin of my XFS stable patches for v4.19.y. The only > > change in this series is adding the upstream commit to the commit log, > > and I've now also Cc'd stable@vger.kernel.org as well. No other issues > > were spotted or raised with this series. > > > > Reviews, questions, or rants are greatly appreciated. > > Test results? > > The set of changes look fine themselves, but as always, the proof is > in the testing... I've first established a baseline for v4.19.18 with fstests using a series of different sections to test against. I annotated the failures on an expunge list and then use that expunge list to confirm no regressions -- no failures if we skip the failures already known for v4.19.18. Each different configuration I test against I use a section for. I only test x86_64 for now but am starting to create a baseline for ppc64le. The sections I use: * xfs * xfs_nocrc * xfs_nocrc_512 * xfs_reflink * xfs_reflink_1024 * xfs_logdev * xfs_realtimedev The sections definitions for these are below: [xfs] MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m crc=1,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/loop15 FSTYP=xfs [xfs_nocrc] MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m crc=0,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/loop15 FSTYP=xfs [xfs_nocrc_512] MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m crc=0,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0, -b size=512,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/loop15 FSTYP=xfs [xfs_reflink] MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/loop15 FSTYP=xfs [xfs_reflink_1024] MKFS_OPTIONS='-f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1, -b size=1024,' USE_EXTERNAL=no LOGWRITES_DEV=/dev/loop15 FSTYP=xfs [xfs_logdev] MKFS_OPTIONS="-f -m crc=1,reflink=0,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=0 -lsize=1g" SCRATCH_LOGDEV=/dev/loop15 USE_EXTERNAL=yes FSTYP=xfs [xfs_realtimedev] MKFS_OPTIONS="-f -lsize=1g" SCRATCH_LOGDEV=/dev/loop15 SCRATCH_RTDEV=/dev/loop14 USE_EXTERNAL=yes FSTYP=xfs These are listed in my example.config which oscheck copies over to /var/lib/xfstests/config/$(hostname).config upon install if you don't have one. I didn't find any regressions against my tests. The baseline is reflected on oscheck's expunge list per kernel release, so in this case expunges/4.19.18. A file exists for each section which tests are known to fail. I'll put them below here for completeness, but all of these files are present on my oscheck repository [0], it is what I use to track baselines for upstream kernels for fstests failures: $ cat expunges/4.19.18/xfs/unassigned/xfs.txt generic/091 generic/263 generic/464 # after ~6 runs generic/475 # after ~15 runs generic/484 xfs/191-input-validation xfs/278 xfs/451 xfs/495 xfs/499 $ cat expunges/4.19.18/xfs/unassigned/xfs_nocrc.txt generic/091 generic/263 generic/464 # after ~39 runs generic/475 # after ~5-10 runs generic/484 xfs/191-input-validation xfs/273 xfs/278 xfs/451 xfs/495 xfs/499 $ cat expunges/4.19.18/xfs/unassigned/xfs_nocrc_512.txt generic/091 generic/263 generic/475 # after ~33 runs generic/482 # after ~16 runs generic/484 xfs/071 xfs/191-input-validation xfs/273 xfs/278 xfs/451 xfs/495 xfs/499 $ cat expunges/4.19.18/xfs/unassigned/xfs_reflink.txt generic/091 generic/263 generic/464 # after ~1 run generic/475 # after ~5 runs generic/484 xfs/191-input-validation xfs/278 xfs/451 xfs/495 xfs/499 $ cat expunges/4.19.18/xfs/unassigned/xfs_reflink_1024.txt generic/091 generic/263 generic/475 # after ~2 runs generic/484 xfs/191-input-validation xfs/278 xfs/451 xfs/495 xfs/499 The xfs_logdev and xfs_realtimedev sections use an external log, and as I have noted before it seems works is needed to rule out an actual failure. But for completely the test which fstests says fail for these sections are below: $ cat expunges/4.19.18/xfs/unassigned/xfs_logdev.txt generic/034 generic/039 generic/040 generic/041 generic/054 generic/055 generic/056 generic/057 generic/059 generic/065 generic/066 generic/073 generic/081 generic/090 generic/091 generic/101 generic/104 generic/106 generic/107 generic/177 generic/204 generic/207 generic/223 generic/260 generic/263 generic/311 generic/321 generic/322 generic/325 generic/335 generic/336 generic/341 generic/342 generic/343 generic/347 generic/348 generic/361 generic/376 generic/455 generic/459 generic/464 # fails after ~2 runs generic/475 # fails after ~5 runs, crashes sometimes generic/482 generic/483 generic/484 generic/489 generic/498 generic/500 generic/502 generic/510 generic/512 generic/520 shared/002 shared/298 xfs/030 xfs/033 xfs/045 xfs/070 xfs/137 xfs/138 xfs/191-input-validation xfs/194 xfs/195 xfs/199 xfs/278 xfs/284 xfs/291 xfs/294 xfs/424 xfs/451 xfs/495 xfs/499 $ cat expunges/4.19.18/xfs/unassigned/xfs_realtimedev.txt generic/034 generic/039 generic/040 generic/041 generic/054 generic/056 generic/057 generic/059 generic/065 generic/066 generic/073 generic/081 generic/090 generic/091 generic/101 generic/104 generic/106 generic/107 generic/177 generic/204 generic/207 generic/223 generic/260 generic/263 generic/311 generic/321 generic/322 generic/325 generic/335 generic/336 generic/341 generic/342 generic/343 generic/347 generic/348 generic/361 generic/376 generic/455 generic/459 generic/464 # fails after ~40 runs generic/475 # fails, and sometimes crashes generic/482 generic/483 generic/484 generic/489 generic/498 generic/500 generic/502 generic/510 generic/512 generic/520 shared/002 shared/298 xfs/002 xfs/030 xfs/033 xfs/068 xfs/070 xfs/137 xfs/138 xfs/191-input-validation xfs/194 xfs/195 xfs/199 xfs/278 xfs/291 xfs/294 xfs/419 xfs/424 xfs/451 xfs/495 xfs/499 Perhaps worth noting which was curious is that I could not get to trigger generic/464 on sections xfs_nocrc_512 and xfs_reflink_1024. Athough I don't have a full baseline for ppc64le I did confirm that backporting upstream commit 837514f7a4ca fixes the kernel.org bug [1] report triggerable via generic/070 on ppc64le. If you have any questions please let me know. [0] https://gitlab.com/mcgrof/oscheck [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201577 Luis