xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfstests 252 failure

To: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfstests 252 failure
From: Allison Henderson <achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:37:25 -0700
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4DF7AB76.8030701@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4DF78127.40505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DF78716.4040605@xxxxxxxxxx> <4DF7AB76.8030701@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
On 06/14/2011 11:41 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 06/14/2011 12:06 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 6/14/11 10:41 AM, Allison Henderson wrote:
Hi all,

I just wanted to get some ideas moving on this question before too
much time goes by. Ext4 is currently failing xfstest 252, test number
12. Currently test 12 is:

     $XFS_IO_PROG $xfs_io_opt -f -c "truncate 20k" \
         -c "$alloc_cmd 0 20k" \
         -c "pwrite 8k 4k" -c "fsync" \
         -c "$zero_cmd 4k 12k" \
         -c "$map_cmd -v" $testfile | $filter_cmd
     [ $? -ne 0 ]&&   die_now

so the file should go through these steps:
(H=hole, P=prealloc, D=data)

0k                       20k
|  H |  H |  H |  H |  H | (truncate)
|  P |  P |  P |  P |  P | (alloc_cmd)
|  P |  P |  D |  P |  P | (pwrite)
<fsync>                     (fsync)
|  P |  H |  H |  H |  P | (punch)

and the output is:

         12. unwritten ->  data ->  unwritten
0: [0..7]: unwritten
1: [8..31]: hole
2: [32..39]: unwritten

Ext4 gets data extents here instead of unwritten extents.

so it's like this?

0: [0..7]: data
1: [8..31]: hole
2: [32..39]: data

I did some
investigating and it looks like the fsync command causes the extents
to be written out before the punch hole operation starts. It looks
like what happens is that when an unwritten extent gets written to,
it doesnt always split the extent. If the extent is small enough,
then it just zeros out the portions that are not written to, and the
whole extent becomes a written extent. Im not sure if that is
incorrect or if we need to change the test to not compare the extent
types.

Yes, it does do that IIRC.

I probably need to look closer, but any test which expects exact
layouts from a filesystem after a series of operations is probably
expecting too much...

 From a data integrity perspective, written zeros is as good as a hole is
as good as preallocated space, so I suppose those should all be acceptable,
though I guess "punch" should result in holes exactly as requested.

It looks to me that the code in ext4 that does this is supposed to be
an optimization to help reduce fragmentation. We could change the
filters to print just "extent" instead of "unwritten" or "data", but
I realize that probably makes the test a lot less effective for xfs.
If anyone can think of some more elegant fixes, please let me know.
Thx!

Josef, what do you think?  It's your test originally.  :)


Yes, a test that was really only meant to test the block based fiemap
since they all act in a dumb and easy to verify way.  I think if we want
to keep this test we should probably have it just recognize these little
optimizations so it doesn't freak out.  Thanks,

Josef

Alrighty then, so it sounds like we should adjust the filters to only recognize extents and holes, and then add a checksum to the punched files. I think that seems pretty straight forward. I already have a patch set out there that is adding more punch hole tests, so I can add these changes in with it if everyone is ok with that. Thx!

Allison Henderson

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