xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfstest: fsstress should kill children tasks before exit

To: aelder@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfstest: fsstress should kill children tasks before exit
From: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:41:13 +0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=Jqtum4pjDr178nTv1CYbM1uzXmcF9cdry18b1qyn/J0=; b=iU2u6KWB0sO/d5Brt3iRX6JfKYhNdFHVEmd5mig77OBOwxv7hhepqgbE1r7XcvWZoY u6+UQjPGkj7NhnXmOO9w9qvnxGMM2BzvmzDXA3oZdMyhM8m8SQLZXkYRzfMX9vy7sqlk gv/5X7/hkxWYmpLE2lGmmvmb8qxCwRev59twc=
In-reply-to: <1317820838.2226.11.camel@doink>
References: <1316357699-22692-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx> <1317820838.2226.11.camel@doink>
Sender: Dmitry Monakhov <rjevskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Notmuch/0.5-69-g3e4a9d6 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu)
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:20:38 -0500, Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-09-18 at 18:54 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > It is very hard to predict runtime for fsstress. In many cases it
> > is useful to give test to run a reasonable time, and then kill it.
> > But currently there is no reliable way to kill test without leaving
> > running children.
> > This patch add sanity cleanup logic which looks follow:
> >  - On sigterm received by parent, it resend signal to it's children
> >  - Wait for each child to terminates
> >  - EXTRA_SANITY: Even if parent was killed by other signal, children
> >    will be terminated with SIGKILL to preven staled children.
> > 
> > So now one can simply run fsstress like this:
> > ./fsstress -p 1000 -n999999999 -d $TEST_DIR &
> > PID=$!
> > sleep 300
> > kill $PID
> > wait $PID
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I think this is an interesting change and it looks
> OK to me.  I agree with Christoph's suggestion (on
> the second patch in this series) that it would be
> nice to have at least one of the tests make use of
> it, if nothing else just to document that it's a
> reasonable thing to do.
> 
> But even without that I think this is both useful
> and harmless.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Ok i'll resend patch shortly, Actually test_case was explained inside
description. So far i've able to caught 3 different minor
fs-corruptions, one BUG_ON on ext4. And when i've run this test
on host with 24-cores it deadlock inside dcache core. 
> 
> 

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