xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] xfs: fix the bulkstat mess

To: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] xfs: fix the bulkstat mess
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 00:02:16 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20141106124907.GA31429@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1415145921-31507-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141105060728.GE28565@dastard> <20141105063226.GF28565@dastard> <20141105131706.GB26724@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141105212100.GG28565@dastard> <20141106065359.GD23575@dastard> <20141106124907.GA31429@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:49:08AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> There's a simple test for that condition, as noted in my previous mail
> as well in case you missed it. Again, that probably calls out that we
> could be doing better unit testing of bulkstat in xfstests. At the very
> least we probably need some bulkstat inode count validation against a
> known data set.

That's exactly what I've been running to find this latest problem.
But a 500TB filesystem with 10 million inodes in it is a bit beyond
xfstests. ANd that only showed up the problem in 4 AGs out of 500,
so with smaller filesystems there's a good chance that this would
have also been missed....

> xfsdump testing is obviously important, but if bulkstat
> is broken then we clearly can't expect xfsdump to work (and debugging
> the former via the latter appears to be quite painful).

We have a bulkstat command in xfstests. And it can be used to
comapre the output against a stat of the file. But it can't detect
missing inodes and I don't think we can start at arbitrary inodes,
either. So it needs work to be able to be used in unit tests.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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