xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [BULK] Re: [PATCH] xfstests 311: test fsync with dm flakey V2

To: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: [PATCH] xfstests 311: test fsync with dm flakey V2
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:05:22 +1000
Cc: "linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130426193101.GR2631@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1366899176-12876-1-git-send-email-jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130425224556.GS30622@dastard> <20130426002404.GN2631@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130426010829.GV30622@dastard> <20130426013237.GO2631@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130426021214.GX30622@dastard> <20130426193101.GR2631@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 03:31:01PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 08:12:14PM -0600, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Ok so I think I'll just make this test do all the iterations of the fsync 
> > > tester
> > > with and without --nolockfs, since without --nolockfs I'm still seeing 
> > > problems,
> > > does that sound reasonable?
> > 
> > Sounds like a fine plan to me ;)
> > 
> 
> Btw its test 19 O_DIRECT that gives me a 0 length file, the buffered case is
> fine.  The test just does a randomly sized sub-block sized write over and over
> again for a random number of times and fsync()'s in there randomly.  The 
> number
> is 3072 because that's the largest inline extent we can have in btrfs, I added
> it specifically to test our inline extent logging.  Thanks,

Interesting - it only runs fsync every 8 iterations of the loop. Can
you check that it is running enough loops to execute a fsync?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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