On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 17:47 +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 02:30:54PM +0200, Nave Vardy wrote:
> >
> > reflink: concurrent operations test
> >
> > perform read operation on the target file while
> > doing write or fpunch operations on the reflinks.
> I'm having the same question as Darrick's, is this test reproducing
> some
> kind of bugs for you?
Maybe it would be better if I'll first explain my motivation for
sending the patch. I am working at Plexistor a company that develops a
new file-system for persistent memory. The file-system supports cow,
and we wrote some fstests, we thought to contribute for the community.
For the test itself, it helped us to found a bug in the development of
cow, no other generic test currently exists did.
>
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nave Vardy <nave.vardy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tests/generic/409 | 97
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > tests/generic/409.out | 2 ++
> > tests/generic/group | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 100 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 tests/generic/409
> 0755 file mode for new test. This is done automatically if you use
> "./new generic" to setup new test template.
>
In the next version of the patch I'll use this.
> >
> > create mode 100644 tests/generic/409.out
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/409 b/tests/generic/409
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..eb1da13
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/generic/409
> > @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
> > +#!/bin/bash
> > +# FS QA Test No. 409
> > +#
> > +# test for races between write or fpunch operations on reflinked
> > files
> > +# to read operations on the targed file
> > +#
> > +#-----------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > +#
> > +# Copyright (c) 2017 Plexistor Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
> > +#
> > +# 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.
> > +#
> > +# This program is distributed in the hope that it would 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 the Free Software
> > Foundation,
> > +# Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
> > +#
> > +#-----------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > +
> > +seq=`basename $0`
> > +seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq
> > +echo "QA output created by $seq"
> > +
> > +here=`pwd`
> > +tmp=/tmp/$$
> > +status=0 # success is the default!
> > +trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15
> > +
> > +_cleanup()
> > +{
> > + cd /
> > + rm -f $tmp.*
> > +}
> > +
> > +# get standard environment, filters and checks
> > +. ./common/rc
> > +. ./common/reflink
> > +
> > +# remove previous $seqres.full before test
> > +rm -f $seqres.full
> > +
> > +# real QA test starts here
> > +_supported_fs generic
> > +_supported_os Linux
> > +_require_scratch_reflink
> > +_require_cp_reflink
> > +
> > +_scratch_mkfs_sized $((400 * 1024 ** 2)) >> $seqres.full 2>&1 ||
> > _fail "mkfs failed"
> Same question on the filesystem size.
>
I used _scratch_mkfs_sized to avoid enospace in this scenario.
I took a lager margin than I needed, which I can narrow down.
The targted file is 10mb and I used 20 reflinks, because the tests
writes the reflinks, in the end each will take place of max 10mb (it is
not accurate because I use fpunch for every second block), so we have
21 files sum to max size of 210mb, so I think 250mb will be good
enough.
> >
> > +_scratch_mount || _fail "mount failed"
> > +
> > +echo "Silence is golden"
> > +
> > +workfile=${SCRATCH_MNT}/workfile
> > +light_clone=${SCRATCH_MNT}/light_clone
> > +
> > +file_size=$((10 * 1024 * 1024))
> > +bs=4096
I used 4096 because this is our file-system copy-on-write granularity,
this is in order to get maximum effect. I'll be able to use
_get_file_block_size().
> > +block_num=$((file_size / bs))
> > +reflinks_num=20
> > +
> > +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 $file_size" $workfile >> $seqres.full
> > +
> > +#create all reflinkfs
> > +for ((i=1; i<reflinks_num; i++));
> > +do
> > + cp --reflink $workfile ${light_clone}_$i
I'll change this to use _cp_reflink()
> > +done
> > +
> > +#for each block simultaneously write to all reflinks
> > +for ((block_index=0; block_index<block_num; block_index++));
> > +do
> > + for ((i=0; i<reflinks_num; i++));
> > + do
> > + if [ $i -eq 0 ]; then
> > + $XFS_IO_PROG -c "pread $((block_index *
> > bs)) $bs" \
> > + $workfile >>
> > $seqres.full &
> > + elif [ $((block_index % 2)) -eq 0 ]; then
> > + $XFS_IO_PROG -c "pwrite $((block_index *
> > bs)) $bs" \
> > + ${light_clone}_$i >>
> > $seqres.full &
> > + else
> > + $XFS_IO_PROG -c "fpunch $((block_index *
> > bs)) $bs" \
> > + ${light_clone}_$i >>
> > $seqres.full &
> > + fi
> I don't see much concurrency in this loop, for each block_index
> there's
> only one pread process and reflinks_num processes doing pwrite or
> fpunch. Seems only pwrites are racing with pwrites and fpunchs are
> racing with fpunchs. How about:
>
> for ((block_index=0; block_index<block_num; block_index++)); do
> for ((i=0; i<reflinks_num; i++)); do
> $XFS_IO_PROG -c "pread ..." ... &
> if [ $((i % 2)) -eq 0 ]; then
> $XFS_IO_PROG -c "pwrite ..." ... &
> else
> $XFS_IO_PROG -c "fpunch ..." ... &
> fi
> done
> wait
> done
>
> So for every pwrite or fpunch there's a pread racing with it. But
> because I don't know if you're reproducing some specific bug with
> this
> loop, I'm not sure if my version still works.
>
I understand your comment and your suggestion, we interntionally didn't
won't to modify the workfile so we just read it and race the pread with
the pwrites of the reflinks (or the fpunchs). we wanted that all
reflinks simultaneously will perform pwrite and in the next iteration
fpunch (and not half reflinks pwrite and the other half fpunch - which
is fine but describes another scenario). I think we can combine your
suggestion with my version, to get more concurrency like this:
for ((block_index=0; block_index<block_num; block_index++)); do
for ((i=0; i<reflinks_num; i++)); do
$XFS_IO_PROG -c "pread $((block_index * bs)) $bs" \
$workfile >> $seqres.full &
if [ $i -ne 0 ]; then
if [ $((block_index % 2)) -eq 0 ]; then
$XFS_IO_PROG -c "pwrite $((block_index * bs)) $bs" \
${light_clone}_$i >> $seqres.full &
else
$XFS_IO_PROG -c "fpunch $((block_index * bs)) $bs" \
${light_clone}_$i >> $seqres.full &
fi
fi
wait
done
done
> > + wait
> > +done
> > +
> > +# success, all done
> > +status=0
> > +exit
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/409.out b/tests/generic/409.out
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..6f11537
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/generic/409.out
> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > +QA output created by 409
> > +Silence is golden
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/group b/tests/generic/group
> > index d14f221..27ff229 100644
> > --- a/tests/generic/group
> > +++ b/tests/generic/group
> > @@ -411,3 +411,4 @@
> > 406 auto quick dangerous
> > 407 auto quick clone metadata
> > 408 auto quick clone dedupe metadata
> > +409 auto quick clone
> If you decide to increase the concurrency/workload, probably the test
> will not be quick enough to fit in quick group :)
>
It is not too important if it would only be in clone and auto
> Thanks,
> Eryu
>
> >
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
