xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: [PATCH] xfstests 311: test fsync with dm flakey V2
From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:32:14 -0400
Cc: Josef Bacik <JBacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fusionio.com; s=default; t=1367015537; bh=aEC990uf/QEhnr5/4HuZRtLJBa4OpHGdoU9lanL3z0E=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=Ftt8FgSdnSJp9+bb3axsVW6P+zdS/z1ltxnyTKKCWul9M+ePsdK+FhLo7hvzFNwVc eivQJzR+CizwXsNAN9PsB9VYpZNB+orJyHkD9BBA5Oxu8u1IdtyEboFOfi0oJkvXz8 7XVt45J2qfu3oOScqIyVUkGZz/kuQZcLFGDN110k=
In-reply-to: <20130426220521.GC30622@dastard>
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> <20130426220521.GC30622@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2011-07-01)
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 04:05:22PM -0600, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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?
> 

If the loop doesn't fsync it still fsyncs before the program exits.  Side note I
once wasted a week because Chris's fsync tester _didn't_ fsync() before exit so
it would tell you a md5sum of a file that hadn't fsync()ed before the md5sum and
I just assumed btrfs was broken.  This test does not make this mistake for that
reason :).  Thanks,

Josef

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