* [PATCHi RFC] fstest: btrfs/158 fix miss-aligned stripe and device [not found] <010f5b0e-939a-b2be-70a2-d8670d1696ab@suse.com> @ 2019-12-11 6:08 ` Anand Jain 2019-12-11 7:08 ` Qu Wenruo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Anand Jain @ 2019-12-11 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: fstests; +Cc: linux-btrfs, wqu We changed the order of the allocation on the devices, and so the test cases which are hard coded to find specific stripe on the specific device gets failed. So fix it with the new layout. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> --- Qu, Right we need to fix the dev in the test case as well. I saw your patches bit late. Here is what I had.. you may use it. So I am marking this patch as RFC. Thanks. tests/btrfs/158 | 10 +++++----- tests/btrfs/158.out | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/btrfs/158 b/tests/btrfs/158 index 603e8bea9b7e..7f2066384f55 100755 --- a/tests/btrfs/158 +++ b/tests/btrfs/158 @@ -76,14 +76,14 @@ _scratch_unmount stripe_0=`get_physical_stripe0` stripe_1=`get_physical_stripe1` -dev4=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $4}'` -dev3=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $3}'` +dev1=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $1}'` +dev2=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $2}'` # step 2: corrupt the 1st and 2nd stripe (stripe 0 and 1) -echo "step 2......simulate bitrot at offset $stripe_0 of device_4($dev4) and offset $stripe_1 of device_3($dev3)" >>$seqres.full +echo "step 2......simulate bitrot at offset $stripe_0 of device_1($dev1) and offset $stripe_1 of device_2($dev2)" >>$seqres.full -$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_0 64K" $dev4 | _filter_xfs_io -$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_1 64K" $dev3 | _filter_xfs_io +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_0 64K" $dev1 | _filter_xfs_io +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_1 64K" $dev2 | _filter_xfs_io # step 3: scrub filesystem to repair the bitrot echo "step 3......repair the bitrot" >> $seqres.full diff --git a/tests/btrfs/158.out b/tests/btrfs/158.out index 1f5ad3f76917..5cdaeb238c62 100644 --- a/tests/btrfs/158.out +++ b/tests/btrfs/158.out @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ QA output created by 158 wrote 131072/131072 bytes at offset 0 XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) -wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 9437184 +wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 22020096 XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) -wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 9437184 +wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 1048576 XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) 0000000 aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa * -- 1.8.3.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHi RFC] fstest: btrfs/158 fix miss-aligned stripe and device 2019-12-11 6:08 ` [PATCHi RFC] fstest: btrfs/158 fix miss-aligned stripe and device Anand Jain @ 2019-12-11 7:08 ` Qu Wenruo 2019-12-11 7:23 ` Anand Jain 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Qu Wenruo @ 2019-12-11 7:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anand Jain, fstests; +Cc: linux-btrfs, wqu [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3083 bytes --] On 2019/12/11 下午2:08, Anand Jain wrote: > We changed the order of the allocation on the devices, and > so the test cases which are hard coded to find specific stripe > on the specific device gets failed. So fix it with the new layout. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> > --- > Qu, Right we need to fix the dev in the test case as well. > I saw your patches bit late. Here is what I had.. you may > use it. So I am marking this patch as RFC. I am crafting a better solution, to handle both behavior (and even future behavior), by getting both devid and physical offset. And I tend to remove the fail_make_request requirement from some tests, and direct read with multiple try should be enough to trigger repair for test btrfs/142 and btrfs/143. In fact, I don't believe your current fix is good enough to handle both old and new mkfs.btrfs. So we need to investigate more for raid repair test cases to make them future proof. Thanks, Qu > Thanks. > > tests/btrfs/158 | 10 +++++----- > tests/btrfs/158.out | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/btrfs/158 b/tests/btrfs/158 > index 603e8bea9b7e..7f2066384f55 100755 > --- a/tests/btrfs/158 > +++ b/tests/btrfs/158 > @@ -76,14 +76,14 @@ _scratch_unmount > > stripe_0=`get_physical_stripe0` > stripe_1=`get_physical_stripe1` > -dev4=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $4}'` > -dev3=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $3}'` > +dev1=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $1}'` > +dev2=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $2}'` > > # step 2: corrupt the 1st and 2nd stripe (stripe 0 and 1) > -echo "step 2......simulate bitrot at offset $stripe_0 of device_4($dev4) and offset $stripe_1 of device_3($dev3)" >>$seqres.full > +echo "step 2......simulate bitrot at offset $stripe_0 of device_1($dev1) and offset $stripe_1 of device_2($dev2)" >>$seqres.full > > -$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_0 64K" $dev4 | _filter_xfs_io > -$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_1 64K" $dev3 | _filter_xfs_io > +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_0 64K" $dev1 | _filter_xfs_io > +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_1 64K" $dev2 | _filter_xfs_io > > # step 3: scrub filesystem to repair the bitrot > echo "step 3......repair the bitrot" >> $seqres.full > diff --git a/tests/btrfs/158.out b/tests/btrfs/158.out > index 1f5ad3f76917..5cdaeb238c62 100644 > --- a/tests/btrfs/158.out > +++ b/tests/btrfs/158.out > @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ > QA output created by 158 > wrote 131072/131072 bytes at offset 0 > XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) > -wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 9437184 > +wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 22020096 > XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) > -wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 9437184 > +wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 1048576 > XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) > 0000000 aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa > * > [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHi RFC] fstest: btrfs/158 fix miss-aligned stripe and device 2019-12-11 7:08 ` Qu Wenruo @ 2019-12-11 7:23 ` Anand Jain 2019-12-11 7:35 ` Qu Wenruo 2019-12-11 13:33 ` David Sterba 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Anand Jain @ 2019-12-11 7:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Qu Wenruo, fstests; +Cc: linux-btrfs, wqu On 12/11/19 3:08 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2019/12/11 下午2:08, Anand Jain wrote: >> We changed the order of the allocation on the devices, and >> so the test cases which are hard coded to find specific stripe >> on the specific device gets failed. So fix it with the new layout. >> >> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> >> --- >> Qu, Right we need to fix the dev in the test case as well. >> I saw your patches bit late. Here is what I had.. you may >> use it. So I am marking this patch as RFC. > > I am crafting a better solution, to handle both behavior (and even > future behavior), by getting both devid and physical offset. Yep helper function using either, devid and btrfs fi show or uuid and blkid would dynamically find the right device. I am ok with either. > And I tend to remove the fail_make_request requirement from some tests, > and direct read with multiple try should be enough to trigger repair for > test btrfs/142 and btrfs/143. > > In fact, I don't believe your current fix is good enough to handle both > old and new mkfs.btrfs. It was designed to handle only forward compatible. Thanks, Anand > So we need to investigate more for raid repair test cases to make them > future proof. > > Thanks, > Qu >> Thanks. >> >> tests/btrfs/158 | 10 +++++----- >> tests/btrfs/158.out | 4 ++-- >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/158 b/tests/btrfs/158 >> index 603e8bea9b7e..7f2066384f55 100755 >> --- a/tests/btrfs/158 >> +++ b/tests/btrfs/158 >> @@ -76,14 +76,14 @@ _scratch_unmount >> >> stripe_0=`get_physical_stripe0` >> stripe_1=`get_physical_stripe1` >> -dev4=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $4}'` >> -dev3=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $3}'` >> +dev1=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $1}'` >> +dev2=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $2}'` >> >> # step 2: corrupt the 1st and 2nd stripe (stripe 0 and 1) >> -echo "step 2......simulate bitrot at offset $stripe_0 of device_4($dev4) and offset $stripe_1 of device_3($dev3)" >>$seqres.full >> +echo "step 2......simulate bitrot at offset $stripe_0 of device_1($dev1) and offset $stripe_1 of device_2($dev2)" >>$seqres.full >> >> -$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_0 64K" $dev4 | _filter_xfs_io >> -$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_1 64K" $dev3 | _filter_xfs_io >> +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_0 64K" $dev1 | _filter_xfs_io >> +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_1 64K" $dev2 | _filter_xfs_io >> >> # step 3: scrub filesystem to repair the bitrot >> echo "step 3......repair the bitrot" >> $seqres.full >> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/158.out b/tests/btrfs/158.out >> index 1f5ad3f76917..5cdaeb238c62 100644 >> --- a/tests/btrfs/158.out >> +++ b/tests/btrfs/158.out >> @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ >> QA output created by 158 >> wrote 131072/131072 bytes at offset 0 >> XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) >> -wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 9437184 >> +wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 22020096 >> XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) >> -wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 9437184 >> +wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 1048576 >> XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) >> 0000000 aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa >> * >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHi RFC] fstest: btrfs/158 fix miss-aligned stripe and device 2019-12-11 7:23 ` Anand Jain @ 2019-12-11 7:35 ` Qu Wenruo 2019-12-11 13:33 ` David Sterba 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Qu Wenruo @ 2019-12-11 7:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anand Jain, fstests; +Cc: linux-btrfs, wqu [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4065 bytes --] On 2019/12/11 下午3:23, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 12/11/19 3:08 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2019/12/11 下午2:08, Anand Jain wrote: >>> We changed the order of the allocation on the devices, and >>> so the test cases which are hard coded to find specific stripe >>> on the specific device gets failed. So fix it with the new layout. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> >>> --- >>> Qu, Right we need to fix the dev in the test case as well. >>> I saw your patches bit late. Here is what I had.. you may >>> use it. So I am marking this patch as RFC. >> >> I am crafting a better solution, to handle both behavior (and even >> future behavior), by getting both devid and physical offset. > > Yep helper function using either, > devid and btrfs fi show > or > uuid and blkid > > would dynamically find the right device. My current helper is going to rely on the fact that all mkfs.btrfs assigned devid sequentially. Which means "mkfs.btrfs -f $dev1 $dev2" will always assigned devid 1 to $dev1, and devid 2 to $dev2. As long as we don't touch that part, we should be OK. (And I really hope we won't touch that part). > > I am ok with either. > >> And I tend to remove the fail_make_request requirement from some tests, >> and direct read with multiple try should be enough to trigger repair for >> test btrfs/142 and btrfs/143. >> > >> In fact, I don't believe your current fix is good enough to handle both >> old and new mkfs.btrfs. > > It was designed to handle only forward compatible. Then both Oracle and SUSE QA people will hate such tests... Thanks, Qu > > Thanks, Anand > >> So we need to investigate more for raid repair test cases to make them >> future proof. >> >> Thanks, >> Qu >>> Thanks. >>> >>> tests/btrfs/158 | 10 +++++----- >>> tests/btrfs/158.out | 4 ++-- >>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/158 b/tests/btrfs/158 >>> index 603e8bea9b7e..7f2066384f55 100755 >>> --- a/tests/btrfs/158 >>> +++ b/tests/btrfs/158 >>> @@ -76,14 +76,14 @@ _scratch_unmount >>> stripe_0=`get_physical_stripe0` >>> stripe_1=`get_physical_stripe1` >>> -dev4=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $4}'` >>> -dev3=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $3}'` >>> +dev1=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $1}'` >>> +dev2=`echo $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL | awk '{print $2}'` >>> # step 2: corrupt the 1st and 2nd stripe (stripe 0 and 1) >>> -echo "step 2......simulate bitrot at offset $stripe_0 of >>> device_4($dev4) and offset $stripe_1 of device_3($dev3)" >>$seqres.full >>> +echo "step 2......simulate bitrot at offset $stripe_0 of >>> device_1($dev1) and offset $stripe_1 of device_2($dev2)" >>$seqres.full >>> -$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_0 64K" $dev4 | >>> _filter_xfs_io >>> -$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_1 64K" $dev3 | >>> _filter_xfs_io >>> +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_0 64K" $dev1 | >>> _filter_xfs_io >>> +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xbb $stripe_1 64K" $dev2 | >>> _filter_xfs_io >>> # step 3: scrub filesystem to repair the bitrot >>> echo "step 3......repair the bitrot" >> $seqres.full >>> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/158.out b/tests/btrfs/158.out >>> index 1f5ad3f76917..5cdaeb238c62 100644 >>> --- a/tests/btrfs/158.out >>> +++ b/tests/btrfs/158.out >>> @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ >>> QA output created by 158 >>> wrote 131072/131072 bytes at offset 0 >>> XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) >>> -wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 9437184 >>> +wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 22020096 >>> XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) >>> -wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 9437184 >>> +wrote 65536/65536 bytes at offset 1048576 >>> XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) >>> 0000000 aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa >>> * >>> >> [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHi RFC] fstest: btrfs/158 fix miss-aligned stripe and device 2019-12-11 7:23 ` Anand Jain 2019-12-11 7:35 ` Qu Wenruo @ 2019-12-11 13:33 ` David Sterba 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: David Sterba @ 2019-12-11 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anand Jain; +Cc: Qu Wenruo, fstests, linux-btrfs, wqu On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 03:23:06PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > And I tend to remove the fail_make_request requirement from some tests, > > and direct read with multiple try should be enough to trigger repair for > > test btrfs/142 and btrfs/143. > > > > > In fact, I don't believe your current fix is good enough to handle both > > old and new mkfs.btrfs. > > It was designed to handle only forward compatible. If possible the tests should be robust and check assumptions and also not hardcode eg. fixed block offset values that could change for various reasons. Forward compatibility makes it hard to test backports, not only on enterprise kernels but also on older stable kernels. We're in a state where developers have list of tests to ignore because they known to be bogus or unreliable. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-12-11 13:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <010f5b0e-939a-b2be-70a2-d8670d1696ab@suse.com>
2019-12-11 6:08 ` [PATCHi RFC] fstest: btrfs/158 fix miss-aligned stripe and device Anand Jain
2019-12-11 7:08 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-12-11 7:23 ` Anand Jain
2019-12-11 7:35 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-12-11 13:33 ` David Sterba
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).