On 01/15/2015 03:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 01/15/2015 04:01 AM, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote:
While using fio-2.2.4 the following snippet produces a verification
error for me on the second fio invocation:
fio --bs=4k --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --verify=meta --iodepth=128
--io_limit=300k --verify_state_save=1 --rw=randwrite --name=write3
--filename=/dev/dm-7 && fio --bs=4k --ioengine=libaio --direct=1
--verify=meta --iodepth=128 --verify_state_load=1 --rw=randread
--name=write3 --filename=/dev/dm-7
However if I put the iodepth of the second fio command down to 64 or
set io_limit the error goes away. I have also sometimes seen an error
that looks similar if the first fio is killed via ctrl-C. Is this to
be expected?
Doesn't reproduce here, but both cases would seem to imply that there's
something not quite right with the completed ios in the verify state
output. I'll take a look.
I wonder if this will do the trick, can you check? If not, I'll need the
full output of the two runs, and the state files saved from the first run.
--
Jens Axboe
diff --git a/verify.c b/verify.c
index 205f01a2fc30..260fa2ae2fad 100644
--- a/verify.c
+++ b/verify.c
@@ -1540,10 +1540,12 @@ int verify_state_should_stop(struct thread_data *td, struct io_u *io_u)
return 0;
/*
- * If we're not into the window of issues - depth yet, continue
+ * If we're not into the window of issues - depth yet, continue. If
+ * issue is shorter than depth, do check.
*/
- if (td->io_blocks[DDIR_READ] < s->depth ||
- s->numberio - td->io_blocks[DDIR_READ] > s->depth)
+ if ((td->io_blocks[DDIR_READ] < s->depth ||
+ s->numberio - td->io_blocks[DDIR_READ] > s->depth) &&
+ s->numberio > s->depth)
return 0;
/*
