[0/2] fstests/xfs: a couple growfs log recovery tests

Message

Brian Foster Oct. 17, 2024, 4:34 p.m. UTC

Hi all,

This is first pass of a growfs crash and log recovery test I cooked up
for XFS. A bit more background and context on this is available here
[1]. In short, this reproduces at least a couple log recovery issues on
XFS related to growfs that Christoph has tracked down and resolved.
Darrick proposed a simple realtime variant in the discussion at [1], so
patch 2 is a stab at that. It's basically just a copy of patch 1 with
some rt related tweaks. However..

Darrick,

I believe you reproduced a problem with your customized realtime variant
of the initial test. I've not been able to reproduce any test failures
with patch 2 here, though I have tried to streamline the test a bit to
reduce unnecessary bits (patch 1 still reproduces the original
problems). I also don't tend to test much with rt, so it's possible my
config is off somehow or another. Otherwise I _think_ I've included the
necessary changes for rt support in the test itself.

Thoughts? I'd like to figure out what might be going on there before
this should land..

Brian

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/[e-mail]/

Brian Foster (2):
  xfs: online grow vs. log recovery stress test
  xfs: online grow vs. log recovery stress test (realtime version)

 tests/xfs/609     | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/xfs/609.out |  7 +++++
 tests/xfs/610     | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/xfs/610.out |  7 +++++
 4 files changed, 154 insertions(+)
 create mode 100755 tests/xfs/609
 create mode 100644 tests/xfs/609.out
 create mode 100755 tests/xfs/610
 create mode 100644 tests/xfs/610.out

Comments

Christoph Hellwig Oct. 18, 2024, 5:09 a.m. UTC | #1

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:34:03PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> I believe you reproduced a problem with your customized realtime variant
> of the initial test. I've not been able to reproduce any test failures
> with patch 2 here, though I have tried to streamline the test a bit to
> reduce unnecessary bits (patch 1 still reproduces the original
> problems). I also don't tend to test much with rt, so it's possible my
> config is off somehow or another. Otherwise I _think_ I've included the
> necessary changes for rt support in the test itself.
> 
> Thoughts? I'd like to figure out what might be going on there before
> this should land..

Darrick mentioned that was just with his rt group patchset, which
make sense as we don't have per-group metadata without that.

Anyway, the series looks good to me, and I think it supersedes my
more targeted hand crafted reproducer.