[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1ebbecbb-bbd3-4a1a-b07c-65f8d1f1ef9d@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:31:00 +0800
From: Zizhi Wo <wozizhi@...wei.com>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
CC: <oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev>, <lkp@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chandan Babu R <chandanbabu@...nel.org>, "Darrick J. Wong"
<djwong@...nel.org>, <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [xfs] ca6448aed4: xfstests.xfs.556.fail
在 2024/9/3 17:16, Zizhi Wo 写道:
> Hi
>
> 在 2024/9/3 13:18, kernel test robot 写道:
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> kernel test robot noticed "xfstests.xfs.556.fail" on:
>>
>> commit: ca6448aed4f10ad88eba79055f181eb9a589a7b3 ("xfs: Fix missing
>> interval for missing_owner in xfs fsmap")
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>>
>> [test failed on linus/master
>> 431c1646e1f86b949fa3685efc50b660a364c2b6]
>> [test failed on linux-next/master
>> 985bf40edf4343dcb04c33f58b40b4a85c1776d4]
>>
>> in testcase: xfstests
>> version: xfstests-x86_64-d9423fec-1_20240826
>> with following parameters:
>>
>> disk: 4HDD
>> fs: xfs
>> test: xfs-556
>>
>>
>>
>> compiler: gcc-12
>> test machine: 4 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1225 v5 @ 3.30GHz
>> (Skylake) with 16G memory
>>
>> (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new
>> version of
>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
>> | Closes:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202409031358.2c34ad37-oliver.sang@intel.com
>>
>> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export TEST_DIR=/fs/sda1
>> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export TEST_DEV=/dev/sda1
>> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export FSTYP=xfs
>> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export SCRATCH_MNT=/fs/scratch
>> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 mkdir /fs/scratch -p
>> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sda4
>> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export SCRATCH_LOGDEV=/dev/sda2
>> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export
>> SCRATCH_XFS_LIST_METADATA_FIELDS=u3.sfdir3.hdr.parent.i4
>> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 export SCRATCH_XFS_LIST_FUZZ_VERBS=random
>> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 echo xfs/556
>> 2024-09-01 09:27:55 ./check xfs/556
>> FSTYP -- xfs (debug)
>> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 lkp-skl-d06
>> 6.11.0-rc5-00007-gca6448aed4f1 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Sun Sep 1
>> 16:52:26 CST 2024
>> MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f /dev/sda4
>> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/sda4 /fs/scratch
>>
>> xfs/556 - output mismatch (see
>> /lkp/benchmarks/xfstests/results//xfs/556.out.bad)
>> --- tests/xfs/556.out 2024-08-26 19:09:50.000000000 +0000
>> +++ /lkp/benchmarks/xfstests/results//xfs/556.out.bad
>> 2024-09-01 09:28:17.532120817 +0000
>> @@ -1,12 +1,21 @@
>> QA output created by 556
>> Scrub for injected media error (single threaded)
>> +Corruption: disk offset 106496: media error in unknown owner.
>> (phase6.c line 400)
>> Unfixable Error: SCRATCH_MNT/a: media error at data offset 2FSB
>> length 1FSB.
>> SCRATCH_MNT: unfixable errors found: 1
>> +SCRATCH_MNT: corruptions found: 1
>> +SCRATCH_MNT: Unmount and run xfs_repair.
>> ...
>> (Run 'diff -u /lkp/benchmarks/xfstests/tests/xfs/556.out
>> /lkp/benchmarks/xfstests/results//xfs/556.out.bad' to see the entire
>> diff)
>> Ran: xfs/556
>> Failures: xfs/556
>> Failed 1 of 1 tests
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
>> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240903/202409031358.2c34ad37-oliver.sang@intel.com
>>
>>
>
> I attempted to reproduce the issue using the script provided in this
> link:
> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240903/202409031358.2c34ad37-oliver.sang@intel.com/repro-script.
> but I discovered that it might not be related to my patch. After I
> reverted my own fsmap-related patches locally and ran the test case
> using this script, it still failed.
>
> I'm not sure if it's due to an issue with my own environment or if there
> are other factors I haven't considered.
>
> However, I still found the current problems of fsmap, and I am not sure
> whether it is related to these two.[1][2]
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/550c038b-d931-4d00-9ebd-5c903e5ddf07@huawei.com/
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240826031005.2493150-1-wozizhi@huawei.com/
>
However, I noticed that if I make the changes mentioned in [1], the
local error message becomes consistent with the one observed without
this patch applied. I'm not certain if this aligns with the expected
behavior.
> Thanks,
> Zizhi Wo
>
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists