| Message ID | 1389038323-8304-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 1/6/14, 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what > seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading > random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the > damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option > actually does something with fsx. Thanks, Hm, old comments seem to indicate that this was done <handwave> to make random behave the same on different architectures (i.e. same result from same seed, I guess?) I . . . don't know if that is true of glibc's random(), is it? I'd like to dig into the history just a bit before we yank this, just to be sure. -Eric > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> > --- > lib/Makefile | 3 +- > lib/random.c | 240 ----------------------------------------------------------- > 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 242 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 lib/random.c > > diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile > index c7348ce..a9e32bc 100644 > --- a/lib/Makefile > +++ b/lib/Makefile > @@ -16,8 +16,7 @@ LT_AGE = 0 > # > CFILES = dataascii.c databin.c datapid.c file_lock.c forker.c \ > pattern.c open_flags.c random_range.c string_to_tokens.c \ > - str_to_bytes.c tlibio.c write_log.c \ > - random.c > + str_to_bytes.c tlibio.c write_log.c > > default: depend $(LTLIBRARY) > > diff --git a/lib/random.c b/lib/random.c > deleted file mode 100644 > index eb23cd9..0000000 > --- a/lib/random.c > +++ /dev/null > @@ -1,240 +0,0 @@ > -/************************************************************************** > - * > - * random.c -- pseudo random number generator > - * Copyright (C) 1994 Chris Wallace (csw@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au) > - * > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > - * (at your option) any later version. > - * > - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > - * GNU General Public License for more details. > - * > - * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > - * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software > - * Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. > - * > - * > - **************************************************************************/ > - > -#include <sys/types.h> > - > -/* > - * modified by dxm@sgi.com so that this file acts as a drop in replacement > - * for srandom and random. > - */ > - > -/* > - * A random number generator called as a function by > - * random (iseed) or irandm (iseed) > - * The parameter should be a pointer to a 2-element int32_t vector. > - * The first function returns a double uniform in 0 .. 1. > - * The second returns a int32_t integer uniform in 0 .. 2**31-1 > - * Both update iseed[] in exactly the same way. > - * iseed[] must be a 2-element integer vector. > - * The initial value of the second element may be anything. > - * > - * The period of the random sequence is 2**32 * (2**32-1) > - * The table mt[0:127] is defined by mt[i] = 69069 ** (128-i) > - */ > - > -#define MASK ((int32_t) 593970775) > -/* or in hex, 23674657 */ > - > -#define SCALE ((double) 1.0 / (1024.0 * 1024.0 * 1024.0 * 2.0)) > -/* i.e. 2 to power -31 */ > - > -static int32_t mt [128] = { > - 902906369, > - 2030498053, > - -473499623, > - 1640834941, > - 723406961, > - 1993558325, > - -257162999, > - -1627724755, > - 913952737, > - 278845029, > - 1327502073, > - -1261253155, > - 981676113, > - -1785280363, > - 1700077033, > - 366908557, > - -1514479167, > - -682799163, > - 141955545, > - -830150595, > - 317871153, > - 1542036469, > - -946413879, > - -1950779155, > - 985397153, > - 626515237, > - 530871481, > - 783087261, > - -1512358895, > - 1031357269, > - -2007710807, > - -1652747955, > - -1867214463, > - 928251525, > - 1243003801, > - -2132510467, > - 1874683889, > - -717013323, > - 218254473, > - -1628774995, > - -2064896159, > - 69678053, > - 281568889, > - -2104168611, > - -165128239, > - 1536495125, > - -39650967, > - 546594317, > - -725987007, > - 1392966981, > - 1044706649, > - 687331773, > - -2051306575, > - 1544302965, > - -758494647, > - -1243934099, > - -75073759, > - 293132965, > - -1935153095, > - 118929437, > - 807830417, > - -1416222507, > - -1550074071, > - -84903219, > - 1355292929, > - -380482555, > - -1818444007, > - -204797315, > - 170442609, > - -1636797387, > - 868931593, > - -623503571, > - 1711722209, > - 381210981, > - -161547783, > - -272740131, > - -1450066095, > - 2116588437, > - 1100682473, > - 358442893, > - -1529216831, > - 2116152005, > - -776333095, > - 1265240893, > - -482278607, > - 1067190005, > - 333444553, > - 86502381, > - 753481377, > - 39000101, > - 1779014585, > - 219658653, > - -920253679, > - 2029538901, > - 1207761577, > - -1515772851, > - -236195711, > - 442620293, > - 423166617, > - -1763648515, > - -398436623, > - -1749358155, > - -538598519, > - -652439379, > - 430550625, > - -1481396507, > - 2093206905, > - -1934691747, > - -962631983, > - 1454463253, > - -1877118871, > - -291917555, > - -1711673279, > - 201201733, > - -474645415, > - -96764739, > - -1587365199, > - 1945705589, > - 1303896393, > - 1744831853, > - 381957665, > - 2135332261, > - -55996615, > - -1190135011, > - 1790562961, > - -1493191723, > - 475559465, > - 69069 > - }; > - > -double > -_random (int32_t is [2]) > -{ > - int32_t it, leh, nit; > - > - it = is [0]; > - leh = is [1]; > - if (it <= 0) > - it = (it + it) ^ MASK; > - else > - it = it + it; > - nit = it - 1; > -/* to ensure all-ones pattern omitted */ > - leh = leh * mt[nit & 127] + nit; > - is [0] = it; is [1] = leh; > - if (leh < 0) leh = ~leh; > - return (SCALE * ((int32_t) (leh | 1))); > -} > - > - > - > -int32_t > -_irandm (int32_t is [2]) > -{ > - int32_t it, leh, nit; > - > - it = is [0]; > - leh = is [1]; > - if (it <= 0) > - it = (it + it) ^ MASK; > - else > - it = it + it; > - nit = it - 1; > -/* to ensure all-ones pattern omitted */ > - leh = leh * mt[nit & 127] + nit; > - is [0] = it; is [1] = leh; > - if (leh < 0) leh = ~leh; > - return (leh); > -} > - > -/* > - * make this a drop in replacement for random and srandom > - * > - * XXX not thread safe I guess. > - */ > - > -static int32_t saved_seed[2]; > - > -long random(void) > -{ > - return _irandm(saved_seed); > -} > - > -void srandom(unsigned seed) > -{ > - saved_seed[0]=seed; > - saved_seed[1]=0; > - _irandm(saved_seed); > -} > - > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 01/06/2014 04:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 1/6/14, 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what >> seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading >> random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the >> damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option >> actually does something with fsx. Thanks, > Hm, old comments seem to indicate that this was done <handwave> to make random > behave the same on different architectures (i.e. same result from same seed, > I guess?) I . . . don't know if that is true of glibc's random(), is it? > > I'd like to dig into the history just a bit before we yank this, just to > be sure. I think that if we need the output to match based on a predictable random() output then we've lost already. We shouldn't be checking for specific output (like inode numbers or sizes etc) that are dependant on random()'s behaviour, and if we are we need to fix those tests. So even if that is why it was put in place originally I'd say it is high time we ripped it out and fixed up any tests that rely on this behaviour. Thanks, Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 1/6/14, 3:42 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On 01/06/2014 04:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 1/6/14, 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what >>> seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading >>> random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the >>> damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option >>> actually does something with fsx. Thanks, >> Hm, old comments seem to indicate that this was done <handwave> to make random >> behave the same on different architectures (i.e. same result from same seed, >> I guess?) I . . . don't know if that is true of glibc's random(), is it? >> >> I'd like to dig into the history just a bit before we yank this, just to >> be sure. > > I think that if we need the output to match based on a predictable > random() output then we've lost already. We shouldn't be checking for > specific output (like inode numbers or sizes etc) that are dependant > on random()'s behaviour, and if we are we need to fix those tests. So > even if that is why it was put in place originally I'd say it is high > time we ripped it out and fixed up any tests that rely on this > behaviour. Thanks, Yeah, you're probably right. And the ancient xfstests history seems to be lost in the mists of time, at least as far as I can see. So I'm ok with this but let's let Dave & SGI chime in too just to be certain. Thanks, -Eric > Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hey Gents, On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:46:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 1/6/14, 3:42 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > On 01/06/2014 04:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> On 1/6/14, 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >>> I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what > >>> seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading > >>> random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the > >>> damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option > >>> actually does something with fsx. Thanks, > >> Hm, old comments seem to indicate that this was done <handwave> to make random > >> behave the same on different architectures (i.e. same result from same seed, > >> I guess?) I . . . don't know if that is true of glibc's random(), is it? > >> > >> I'd like to dig into the history just a bit before we yank this, just to > >> be sure. > > > > I think that if we need the output to match based on a predictable > > random() output then we've lost already. We shouldn't be checking for > > specific output (like inode numbers or sizes etc) that are dependant > > on random()'s behaviour, and if we are we need to fix those tests. So > > even if that is why it was put in place originally I'd say it is high > > time we ripped it out and fixed up any tests that rely on this > > behaviour. Thanks, > > Yeah, you're probably right. And the ancient xfstests history seems to > be lost in the mists of time, at least as far as I can see. So I'm ok > with this but let's let Dave & SGI chime in too just to be certain. I did not have success locating the history prior to what we have posted on oss. I agree that it was likely added so that tests that expose output from random into golden output files will have the same results across arches. Maybe this is still of concern for folks who use a different c library with the kernel. Looks there are quite a few callers. IMO if we're going to remove this we should fix the tests first. -Ben -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 1/7/14, 2:01 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Gents, > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:46:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 1/6/14, 3:42 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> >>> On 01/06/2014 04:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> On 1/6/14, 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>>> I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what >>>>> seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading >>>>> random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the >>>>> damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option >>>>> actually does something with fsx. Thanks, >>>> Hm, old comments seem to indicate that this was done <handwave> to make random >>>> behave the same on different architectures (i.e. same result from same seed, >>>> I guess?) I . . . don't know if that is true of glibc's random(), is it? >>>> >>>> I'd like to dig into the history just a bit before we yank this, just to >>>> be sure. >>> >>> I think that if we need the output to match based on a predictable >>> random() output then we've lost already. We shouldn't be checking for >>> specific output (like inode numbers or sizes etc) that are dependant >>> on random()'s behaviour, and if we are we need to fix those tests. So >>> even if that is why it was put in place originally I'd say it is high >>> time we ripped it out and fixed up any tests that rely on this >>> behaviour. Thanks, >> >> Yeah, you're probably right. And the ancient xfstests history seems to >> be lost in the mists of time, at least as far as I can see. So I'm ok >> with this but let's let Dave & SGI chime in too just to be certain. > > I did not have success locating the history prior to what we have posted on > oss. I agree that it was likely added so that tests that expose output from > random into golden output files will have the same results across arches. > Maybe this is still of concern for folks who use a different c library with the > kernel. > > Looks there are quite a few callers. IMO if we're going to remove this we > should fix the tests first. Or first, determine if they really need fixing. Did you find tests which actually contain the random results in the golden output? -Eric > -Ben > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 1/7/14, 2:10 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 1/7/14, 2:01 PM, Ben Myers wrote: >> Hey Gents, >> >> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:46:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 1/6/14, 3:42 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>> >>>> On 01/06/2014 04:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/14, 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>>>> I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what >>>>>> seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading >>>>>> random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the >>>>>> damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option >>>>>> actually does something with fsx. Thanks, >>>>> Hm, old comments seem to indicate that this was done <handwave> to make random >>>>> behave the same on different architectures (i.e. same result from same seed, >>>>> I guess?) I . . . don't know if that is true of glibc's random(), is it? >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to dig into the history just a bit before we yank this, just to >>>>> be sure. >>>> >>>> I think that if we need the output to match based on a predictable >>>> random() output then we've lost already. We shouldn't be checking for >>>> specific output (like inode numbers or sizes etc) that are dependant >>>> on random()'s behaviour, and if we are we need to fix those tests. So >>>> even if that is why it was put in place originally I'd say it is high >>>> time we ripped it out and fixed up any tests that rely on this >>>> behaviour. Thanks, >>> >>> Yeah, you're probably right. And the ancient xfstests history seems to >>> be lost in the mists of time, at least as far as I can see. So I'm ok >>> with this but let's let Dave & SGI chime in too just to be certain. >> >> I did not have success locating the history prior to what we have posted on >> oss. I agree that it was likely added so that tests that expose output from >> random into golden output files will have the same results across arches. >> Maybe this is still of concern for folks who use a different c library with the >> kernel. >> >> Looks there are quite a few callers. IMO if we're going to remove this we >> should fix the tests first. > > Or first, determine if they really need fixing. Did you find tests which > actually contain the random results in the golden output? This should be easy enough to test by just hacking the lib/random.c with a new starting seed, right? -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 01/07/2014 03:10 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 1/7/14, 2:01 PM, Ben Myers wrote: >> Hey Gents, >> >> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:46:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 1/6/14, 3:42 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>> On 01/06/2014 04:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/14, 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>>>> I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what >>>>>> seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading >>>>>> random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the >>>>>> damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option >>>>>> actually does something with fsx. Thanks, >>>>> Hm, old comments seem to indicate that this was done <handwave> to make random >>>>> behave the same on different architectures (i.e. same result from same seed, >>>>> I guess?) I . . . don't know if that is true of glibc's random(), is it? >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to dig into the history just a bit before we yank this, just to >>>>> be sure. >>>> I think that if we need the output to match based on a predictable >>>> random() output then we've lost already. We shouldn't be checking for >>>> specific output (like inode numbers or sizes etc) that are dependant >>>> on random()'s behaviour, and if we are we need to fix those tests. So >>>> even if that is why it was put in place originally I'd say it is high >>>> time we ripped it out and fixed up any tests that rely on this >>>> behaviour. Thanks, >>> Yeah, you're probably right. And the ancient xfstests history seems to >>> be lost in the mists of time, at least as far as I can see. So I'm ok >>> with this but let's let Dave & SGI chime in too just to be certain. >> I did not have success locating the history prior to what we have posted on >> oss. I agree that it was likely added so that tests that expose output from >> random into golden output files will have the same results across arches. >> Maybe this is still of concern for folks who use a different c library with the >> kernel. >> >> Looks there are quite a few callers. IMO if we're going to remove this we >> should fix the tests first. > Or first, determine if they really need fixing. Did you find tests which > actually contain the random results in the golden output? > I looked through stuff when I ripped it out and I couldn't find anything that relied on consistent numbers, we tend to filter all that stuff out. I think ripping it out and waiting to see if somebody complains is a good way to figure out if things need fixing, but that may be less than friendly ;). Thanks, Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:10:15PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 1/7/14, 2:01 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > Hey Gents, > > > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:46:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> On 1/6/14, 3:42 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >>> > >>> On 01/06/2014 04:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>>> On 1/6/14, 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >>>>> I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what > >>>>> seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading > >>>>> random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the > >>>>> damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option > >>>>> actually does something with fsx. Thanks, > >>>> Hm, old comments seem to indicate that this was done <handwave> to make random > >>>> behave the same on different architectures (i.e. same result from same seed, > >>>> I guess?) I . . . don't know if that is true of glibc's random(), is it? > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to dig into the history just a bit before we yank this, just to > >>>> be sure. > >>> > >>> I think that if we need the output to match based on a predictable > >>> random() output then we've lost already. We shouldn't be checking for > >>> specific output (like inode numbers or sizes etc) that are dependant > >>> on random()'s behaviour, and if we are we need to fix those tests. So > >>> even if that is why it was put in place originally I'd say it is high > >>> time we ripped it out and fixed up any tests that rely on this > >>> behaviour. Thanks, > >> > >> Yeah, you're probably right. And the ancient xfstests history seems to > >> be lost in the mists of time, at least as far as I can see. So I'm ok > >> with this but let's let Dave & SGI chime in too just to be certain. > > > > I did not have success locating the history prior to what we have posted on > > oss. I agree that it was likely added so that tests that expose output from > > random into golden output files will have the same results across arches. > > Maybe this is still of concern for folks who use a different c library with the > > kernel. > > > > Looks there are quite a few callers. IMO if we're going to remove this we > > should fix the tests first. > > Or first, determine if they really need fixing. Did you find tests which > actually contain the random results in the golden output? At one point random.c was modified because it was returning different test results on i386 and ia64 with test 007. Looks like nametest.c is a good candidate. -Ben -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 01/07/2014 03:40 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:10:15PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 1/7/14, 2:01 PM, Ben Myers wrote: >>> Hey Gents, >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:46:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> On 1/6/14, 3:42 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>>> On 01/06/2014 04:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/14, 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>>>>> I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what >>>>>>> seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading >>>>>>> random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the >>>>>>> damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option >>>>>>> actually does something with fsx. Thanks, >>>>>> Hm, old comments seem to indicate that this was done <handwave> to make random >>>>>> behave the same on different architectures (i.e. same result from same seed, >>>>>> I guess?) I . . . don't know if that is true of glibc's random(), is it? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to dig into the history just a bit before we yank this, just to >>>>>> be sure. >>>>> I think that if we need the output to match based on a predictable >>>>> random() output then we've lost already. We shouldn't be checking for >>>>> specific output (like inode numbers or sizes etc) that are dependant >>>>> on random()'s behaviour, and if we are we need to fix those tests. So >>>>> even if that is why it was put in place originally I'd say it is high >>>>> time we ripped it out and fixed up any tests that rely on this >>>>> behaviour. Thanks, >>>> Yeah, you're probably right. And the ancient xfstests history seems to >>>> be lost in the mists of time, at least as far as I can see. So I'm ok >>>> with this but let's let Dave & SGI chime in too just to be certain. >>> I did not have success locating the history prior to what we have posted on >>> oss. I agree that it was likely added so that tests that expose output from >>> random into golden output files will have the same results across arches. >>> Maybe this is still of concern for folks who use a different c library with the >>> kernel. >>> >>> Looks there are quite a few callers. IMO if we're going to remove this we >>> should fix the tests first. >> Or first, determine if they really need fixing. Did you find tests which >> actually contain the random results in the golden output? > At one point random.c was modified because it was returning different test > results on i386 and ia64 with test 007. Looks like nametest.c is a good > candidate. > Ugh you're right. Just ignore this patch for now, I'll be in the corner banging my head against the wall. Thanks, Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 09:20:12PM +0000, Chris Mason wrote: > On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 16:17 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On 01/07/2014 03:40 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:10:15PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > >> On 1/7/14, 2:01 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > >>> Hey Gents, > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:46:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > >>>> On 1/6/14, 3:42 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > >>>>> On 01/06/2014 04:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > >>>>>> On 1/6/14, 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > >>>>>>> I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what > > >>>>>>> seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading > > >>>>>>> random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the > > >>>>>>> damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option > > >>>>>>> actually does something with fsx. Thanks, .... > For now we can just use srandom? Seems to me like it will solve the problem. Josef? Cheers, Dave.
diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index c7348ce..a9e32bc 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -16,8 +16,7 @@ LT_AGE = 0 # CFILES = dataascii.c databin.c datapid.c file_lock.c forker.c \ pattern.c open_flags.c random_range.c string_to_tokens.c \ - str_to_bytes.c tlibio.c write_log.c \ - random.c + str_to_bytes.c tlibio.c write_log.c default: depend $(LTLIBRARY) diff --git a/lib/random.c b/lib/random.c deleted file mode 100644 index eb23cd9..0000000 --- a/lib/random.c +++ /dev/null @@ -1,240 +0,0 @@ -/************************************************************************** - * - * random.c -- pseudo random number generator - * Copyright (C) 1994 Chris Wallace (csw@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au) - * - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or - * (at your option) any later version. - * - * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, - * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of - * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the - * GNU General Public License for more details. - * - * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License - * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software - * Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. - * - * - **************************************************************************/ - -#include <sys/types.h> - -/* - * modified by dxm@sgi.com so that this file acts as a drop in replacement - * for srandom and random. - */ - -/* - * A random number generator called as a function by - * random (iseed) or irandm (iseed) - * The parameter should be a pointer to a 2-element int32_t vector. - * The first function returns a double uniform in 0 .. 1. - * The second returns a int32_t integer uniform in 0 .. 2**31-1 - * Both update iseed[] in exactly the same way. - * iseed[] must be a 2-element integer vector. - * The initial value of the second element may be anything. - * - * The period of the random sequence is 2**32 * (2**32-1) - * The table mt[0:127] is defined by mt[i] = 69069 ** (128-i) - */ - -#define MASK ((int32_t) 593970775) -/* or in hex, 23674657 */ - -#define SCALE ((double) 1.0 / (1024.0 * 1024.0 * 1024.0 * 2.0)) -/* i.e. 2 to power -31 */ - -static int32_t mt [128] = { - 902906369, - 2030498053, - -473499623, - 1640834941, - 723406961, - 1993558325, - -257162999, - -1627724755, - 913952737, - 278845029, - 1327502073, - -1261253155, - 981676113, - -1785280363, - 1700077033, - 366908557, - -1514479167, - -682799163, - 141955545, - -830150595, - 317871153, - 1542036469, - -946413879, - -1950779155, - 985397153, - 626515237, - 530871481, - 783087261, - -1512358895, - 1031357269, - -2007710807, - -1652747955, - -1867214463, - 928251525, - 1243003801, - -2132510467, - 1874683889, - -717013323, - 218254473, - -1628774995, - -2064896159, - 69678053, - 281568889, - -2104168611, - -165128239, - 1536495125, - -39650967, - 546594317, - -725987007, - 1392966981, - 1044706649, - 687331773, - -2051306575, - 1544302965, - -758494647, - -1243934099, - -75073759, - 293132965, - -1935153095, - 118929437, - 807830417, - -1416222507, - -1550074071, - -84903219, - 1355292929, - -380482555, - -1818444007, - -204797315, - 170442609, - -1636797387, - 868931593, - -623503571, - 1711722209, - 381210981, - -161547783, - -272740131, - -1450066095, - 2116588437, - 1100682473, - 358442893, - -1529216831, - 2116152005, - -776333095, - 1265240893, - -482278607, - 1067190005, - 333444553, - 86502381, - 753481377, - 39000101, - 1779014585, - 219658653, - -920253679, - 2029538901, - 1207761577, - -1515772851, - -236195711, - 442620293, - 423166617, - -1763648515, - -398436623, - -1749358155, - -538598519, - -652439379, - 430550625, - -1481396507, - 2093206905, - -1934691747, - -962631983, - 1454463253, - -1877118871, - -291917555, - -1711673279, - 201201733, - -474645415, - -96764739, - -1587365199, - 1945705589, - 1303896393, - 1744831853, - 381957665, - 2135332261, - -55996615, - -1190135011, - 1790562961, - -1493191723, - 475559465, - 69069 - }; - -double -_random (int32_t is [2]) -{ - int32_t it, leh, nit; - - it = is [0]; - leh = is [1]; - if (it <= 0) - it = (it + it) ^ MASK; - else - it = it + it; - nit = it - 1; -/* to ensure all-ones pattern omitted */ - leh = leh * mt[nit & 127] + nit; - is [0] = it; is [1] = leh; - if (leh < 0) leh = ~leh; - return (SCALE * ((int32_t) (leh | 1))); -} - - - -int32_t -_irandm (int32_t is [2]) -{ - int32_t it, leh, nit; - - it = is [0]; - leh = is [1]; - if (it <= 0) - it = (it + it) ^ MASK; - else - it = it + it; - nit = it - 1; -/* to ensure all-ones pattern omitted */ - leh = leh * mt[nit & 127] + nit; - is [0] = it; is [1] = leh; - if (leh < 0) leh = ~leh; - return (leh); -} - -/* - * make this a drop in replacement for random and srandom - * - * XXX not thread safe I guess. - */ - -static int32_t saved_seed[2]; - -long random(void) -{ - return _irandm(saved_seed); -} - -void srandom(unsigned seed) -{ - saved_seed[0]=seed; - saved_seed[1]=0; - _irandm(saved_seed); -} -
I was trying to reproduce something with fsx and I noticed that no matter what seed I set I was getting the same file. Come to find out we are overloading random() with our own custom horribleness for some unknown reason. So nuke the damn thing from orbit and rely on glibc's random(). With this fix the -S option actually does something with fsx. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> --- lib/Makefile | 3 +- lib/random.c | 240 ----------------------------------------------------------- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 242 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 lib/random.c