xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/8] Add test of quota accounting using fsx

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] Add test of quota accounting using fsx
From: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:48:48 +0200
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, ext4 development <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20100727081538.GB3358@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1274710459-11446-1-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <1274710459-11446-5-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <4C0FD43D.3040803@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20100615095505.GB3347@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C4E0229.5040002@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20100727081538.GB3358@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Tue 27-07-10 10:15:38, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 26-07-10 16:46:17, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > On 06/15/2010 04:55 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Wed 09-06-10 12:49:49, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > >> Jan Kara wrote:
> > >>> Run fsx (and also several fsx threads in parallel) and verify that
> > >>> quota accounting is correct after they finish.
> > >>
> > >> Jan, I'm having trouble with this one on XFS for some reason, with our 
> > >> RHEL6 kernel and quota-3.17...
> > >   OK, attached is an improvement to the XFSQA tests after which all quota
> > > tests pass for XFS just fine.
> > >   The second patch is just minor general improvement of _require_scratch
> > > macro.
> > >   Could they be added to XFSQA repository? Thanks.
> > 
> > Jan, I've got some ext4 failures reported on these, although I can't hit
> > them, so not quite sure what's going on.
> > 
> > In 231:
> > 
> > +< fsgqa     --     760       0       0              3     0     0
> > +---
> > +> fsgqa     --     764       0       0              3     0     0
> > +14c14
> > +< fsgqa     --     760       0       0              3     0     0
> > +---
> > +> fsgqa     --     764       0       0              3     0     0
> > 
> > after the quotacheck & repquota we have 4 more blocks.  Maybe this
> > is due to my accounting of metadata blocks at write time, and not
> > before ... would it be reasonable to put a sync call as the first
> > line of check_usage() ?
>   Just last week a change went into xfstests which introduces a generic
> quota checking function and uses sync before getting quota usage. I think
> xfstests passed for me with ext4 after this change but I've now restarted
> the tests to recheck it.
  For me all the quota tests pass just fine with ext4 and the latest
xfstests... So does the latest version work also for you?

                                                                        Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>