| Message ID | 20241017163405.173062-1-bfoster@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | fstests/xfs: a couple growfs log recovery tests | expand |
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.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:09:09AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. > Ah, that would explain it then. > Anyway, the series looks good to me, and I think it supersedes my > more targeted hand crafted reproducer. > Ok, thanks. It would be nice if anybody who knows more about the rt group stuff could give the rt test a quick whirl and just confirm it's at least still effective in that known broken case after my tweaks. Otherwise I'll wait on any feedback on the code/test itself... thanks. Brian
On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:29:22AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:09:09AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > 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. > > > > Ah, that would explain it then. Yep. > > Anyway, the series looks good to me, and I think it supersedes my > > more targeted hand crafted reproducer. > > > > Ok, thanks. It would be nice if anybody who knows more about the rt > group stuff could give the rt test a quick whirl and just confirm it's > at least still effective in that known broken case after my tweaks. > Otherwise I'll wait on any feedback on the code/test itself... thanks. Will do, now that I'm out of the mountains. :) The tests look fine to me, but I guess we could wait to see what falls out when I add bfoster's tests. --D > Brian > >
On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:29:22AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:09:09AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > 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. > > > > Ah, that would explain it then. > > > Anyway, the series looks good to me, and I think it supersedes my > > more targeted hand crafted reproducer. > > > > Ok, thanks. It would be nice if anybody who knows more about the rt > group stuff could give the rt test a quick whirl and just confirm it's > at least still effective in that known broken case after my tweaks. > Otherwise I'll wait on any feedback on the code/test itself... thanks. Perplexingly, I tried this out on the test fleet last night and got zero failures except for torvalds TOT. Oh, I don't have any recoveryloop VMs that also have rt enabled, maybe that's why 610 didn't pop anywhere. --D > Brian >
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:41:50AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Perplexingly, I tried this out on the test fleet last night and got zero > failures except for torvalds TOT. > > Oh, I don't have any recoveryloop VMs that also have rt enabled, maybe > that's why 610 didn't pop anywhere. Note that your trees already contain the fixes for AGs and RTGs, so they are not expected to fail. To Linus' tree fail is expected for AGs, and we'd need an older version of your rtgroup branch to fail for RTGs. As far as I can tell the result is expected.