xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stress test on ppc

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: stress test on ppc
From: Thomas Graichen <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 15 Nov 2000 09:37:03 GMT
Distribution: local
Organization: innominate AG, Berlin, Germany
References: <news2mail-8uecj0$i5e$1@mate.bln.innominate.de> <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@innominate.de> <10011101103.ZM113097@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20001110094151.C333@ysabell> <10011110006.ZM127189@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <news2mail-8uo7od$4lt$1@mate.bln.innominate.de> <10011141059.ZM128320@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
Reply-to: Thomas Graichen <graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.0-XFS-test10 (i586))
"Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> hi Thomas,

> On Nov 13,  8:11am, Thomas Graichen wrote:
>> Subject: Re: stress test on ppc
>> ...
>> > ah - I think I see whats happened - there's two -ne tests like
>> > this & last time I only fixed one ... hopefully its fixed now
>> > (as of two minutes ago).
>> 
>> ok - reran the tests with your fixes - the current results (with all
>> the failed .out and .out.bad files) can be found at
>> 
>>   http://innominate.org/~graichen/projects/xfs/ppc/ppc.13-11-2000.tgz
>> 

> ok, some progress - looks like the scratch device problem is
> resolved and test 002 is fixed - great!

> 004 - this looks like a 32 bit number overflow in the xfs_db
> "freesp" command, i'll need to investigate a bit more.

> 018 - ??? no idea - looks like theres a bunch of unexpected
> records in the log for some reason?  bizarre.

> 020 - attribute syscall code not there in ppc?

> 026/027/028/046/047 - a reoccurence of the dump/restore problems
> from Marcelo, Tim/Ivan?  or new ones?
> also group "nobody" assumed to exist, but doesn't.  can we change
> the way the test works, Tim?  or exit cleanly if no "nobody" grp?
> or use numeric gids instead of named groups perhaps?

> 032 - hmmm... could be a problem in mount(8) code which we use
> for mkfs.xfs so that it doesn't overwrite other filesystems -
> can you see whether mount on ppc can autodetect (i.e. mount
> without "-t" a filesystem created by mkfs.minix on ppc?  thanks)

will try that

the current results (with fresh kernel and fresh cmd) are at

  http://innominate.org/~graichen/procjects/xfs/ppc.15-11-2000.tgz

but they are at a rough view not really different - by maybe you
find something in them

i'm also not really shure about the syscall thing: i added sys_attrctl
to arch/ppc/kernel/misc.S (where the sys_call_table on ppc is - it's
not in entry.S here) also as nr 250 (padded with sys_ni_syscall's)
and also added it to unistd.h and recompiled and installed
everything and still get things like

  attr_set: Bad address

which looks like it does still not work - is there any other place i
have to add an entry for this new syscall?

a lot of thanks in advance

t

-- 
thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
technical director                                       innominate AG
clustering & security                             the linux architects
tel: +49-30-308806-13   fax: -77             http://www.innominate.com

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