[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191023232614.GB1124@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:26:14 -0400
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: jack@...e.cz, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, mbobrowski@...browski.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Ext4: Add support for blocksize < pagesize for
dioread_nolock
Hi Ritesh,
I haven't had a chance to dig into the test failures yet, but FYI....
when I ran the auto test group in xfstests, I saw failures for
generic/219, generic 273, and generic/476 --- these errors did not
show up when running using a standard 4k blocksize on x86, and they
also did not show up when running dioread_nolock using a 4k blocksize.
So I tried running "generic/219 generic/273 generic/476" 30 times,
using in a Google Compute Engine VM, using gce-xfstests, and while I
wasn't able to get generic/219 to fail when run in isolation,
generic/273 seems to fail quite reliably, and generic/476 about a
third of the time.
How much testing have you done with these patches?
Thanks,
- Ted
TESTRUNID: tytso-20191023144956
KERNEL: kernel 5.4.0-rc3-xfstests-00005-g39b811602906 #1244 SMP Wed Oct 23 11:30:25 EDT 2019 x86_64
CMDLINE: --update-files -C 30 -c dioread_nolock_1k generic/219 generic/273 generic/476
CPUS: 2
MEM: 7680
ext4/dioread_nolock_1k: 90 tests, 42 failures, 10434 seconds
Failures: generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273
generic/476 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/273
generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273
generic/476 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/273
generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273
generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273
generic/476 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/273
generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273
generic/476 generic/273 generic/476
Totals: 90 tests, 0 skipped, 42 failures, 0 errors, 10434s
Powered by blists - more mailing lists