All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Failure of xfstest 229
@ 2011-05-20  0:55 Chandra Seetharaman
  2011-05-20  2:58 ` Dave Chinner
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chandra Seetharaman @ 2011-05-20  0:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: XFS Mailing List

Hi all,

I remember running this test successfully sometime back. 

But, now it is failing on different versions of kernel that I try it on,
like 2.6.34,35,36,37,38 and 39. with the following errors (at the end).

I tried it in 2 filesystem sizes (1TB and 20GB), both of which fail.

I tried to do what the test does externally and found that running
xfs_io -c "extsize ${EXTSIZE}" ${TDIR}

before running 
$here/src/t_holes ${TDIR}/${i}

creates the failures.

Is there any special setup needed for it to run successfully ?

Thanks & Regards,

chandra
---------------------------------------------

229 118s ... [failed, exit status 45] - output mismatch (see 229.out.bad)
--- 229.out	2011-04-20 08:34:36.000000000 -0700
+++ 229.out.bad	2011-05-19 14:51:48.000000000 -0700
@@ -1,4 +1,49 @@
 QA output created by 229
 generating 10 files
 comparing files
-got 0 errors
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 differ: char 282193, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 differ: char 277873, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 differ: char 264289, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 differ: char 282193, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 differ: char 282193, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 282193, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 282193, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 282193, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/0 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 265361, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 differ: char 277873, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 differ: char 264289, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 differ: char 415617, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 differ: char 304801, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 415617, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 415617, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 402977, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/1 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 265361, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 differ: char 264289, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 differ: char 277873, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 differ: char 277873, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 277873, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 277873, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 277873, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/2 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 265361, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 differ: char 264289, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 differ: char 264289, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 264289, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 264289, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 264289, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/3 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 264289, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 differ: char 304801, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 416689, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 474353, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 402977, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/4 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 265361, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 differ: char 304801, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 304801, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 304801, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/5 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 265361, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 differ: char 416689, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 402977, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/6 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 265361, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 differ: char 402977, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/7 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 265361, line 1
+/mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/8 /mnt/xfsMntPt//t_holes/9 differ: char 265361, line 1
+got 45 errors
Ran: 229
Failures: 229
Failed 1 of 1 tests
---------------------------

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Failure of xfstest 229
  2011-05-20  0:55 Failure of xfstest 229 Chandra Seetharaman
@ 2011-05-20  2:58 ` Dave Chinner
  2011-05-20 16:35   ` Chandra Seetharaman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2011-05-20  2:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chandra Seetharaman; +Cc: XFS Mailing List

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 05:55:37PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I remember running this test successfully sometime back. 

No. it's never passed. It's a placeholder to remind us how to
reproduce a known problem that is difficult to fix.

Cheers,

Dave.

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Failure of xfstest 229
  2011-05-20  2:58 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2011-05-20 16:35   ` Chandra Seetharaman
  2011-05-20 17:13     ` Christoph Hellwig
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chandra Seetharaman @ 2011-05-20 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: XFS Mailing List


Can it run successfully by fluke sometimes ? I did have a successful run
on the 20G filesystem yesterday once, but not able to reproduce it again
---------------
FSTYP         -- xfs (non-debug)
PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 test201 2.6.39
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -bsize=4096 /dev/sdd2
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:nfs_t:s0 /dev/sdd2
/mnt/xfsScratchMntPt

229 70s ... 118s
Ran: 229
Passed all 1 tests
-----------------

chandra
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 12:58 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 05:55:37PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I remember running this test successfully sometime back. 
> 
> No. it's never passed. It's a placeholder to remind us how to
> reproduce a known problem that is difficult to fix.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> 


_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Failure of xfstest 229
  2011-05-20 16:35   ` Chandra Seetharaman
@ 2011-05-20 17:13     ` Christoph Hellwig
  2011-05-20 19:01       ` Chandra Seetharaman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2011-05-20 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chandra Seetharaman; +Cc: XFS Mailing List

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:35:03AM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> 
> Can it run successfully by fluke sometimes ? I did have a successful run
> on the 20G filesystem yesterday once, but not able to reproduce it again

It doesn't fail on thinly provisioned storage which zeroes out any
blocks it gives to the OS.  Similarly it might not fail if all blocks
that it would normally leak are zeroed underneath for some reason,
but it's rather unlikely that this happens by accident.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Failure of xfstest 229
  2011-05-20 17:13     ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2011-05-20 19:01       ` Chandra Seetharaman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chandra Seetharaman @ 2011-05-20 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: XFS Mailing List

It is strange then.

It is the same system, and it failed few hours after it succeeded in
2.6.39.

Basically, I saw seeing the failure with 2TB fs. I thought I will try it
with a 20GB fs, and the very first time it succeeded, but after that it
never did even with the same kernel (2.6.39).

On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 13:13 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:35:03AM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > 
> > Can it run successfully by fluke sometimes ? I did have a successful run
> > on the 20G filesystem yesterday once, but not able to reproduce it again
> 
> It doesn't fail on thinly provisioned storage which zeroes out any
> blocks it gives to the OS.  Similarly it might not fail if all blocks
> that it would normally leak are zeroed underneath for some reason,
> but it's rather unlikely that this happens by accident.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs


_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-20 19:01 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-05-20  0:55 Failure of xfstest 229 Chandra Seetharaman
2011-05-20  2:58 ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-20 16:35   ` Chandra Seetharaman
2011-05-20 17:13     ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-20 19:01       ` Chandra Seetharaman

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.