On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 05:03:21PM +0200, Omer Zilberberg wrote: > > > On 11/01/2017 02:52 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 02:06:27PM +0200, Omer Zilberberg wrote: > >> > >> On 10/31/2017 01:34 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:25:51PM +0200, Omer Zilberberg wrote: > >>>> On 10/31/2017 06:37 AM, Eryu Guan wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:08:31AM +0200, Omer Zilberberg wrote: > >>>>>>> These tests locally change the TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS/MOUNT_OPTIONS > >>>>>>> environment variables, and run _test_cycle_mount. As a result, following > >>>>>>> tests using the TEST mount point may start with different mount options, > >>>>>>> depending on run order. > >>>>>> I don't think that's the case. The change of the environment > >>>>>> variable should only affect the current test process and it's > >>>>>> children. When the test exits, we go back to the environment of the > >>>>>> check process, where the TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS environment variable is > >>>>>> still correctly set, and all future tests inherit from that. i.e.: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> $ export FOO=foo > >>>>>> $ echo $FOO > >>>>>> foo > >>>>>> $ bash > >>>>>> $ echo $FOO > >>>>>> foo > >>>>>> $ export FOO=bar > >>>>>> $ echo $FOO > >>>>>> bar > >>>>>> $ exit > >>>>>> $ echo $FOO > >>>>>> foo > >>>>>> $ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And after each test, check runs _check_filesystems(), which cycles > >>>>>> the test mount, so for each new test process that is run they should > >>>>>> already start in the correct state... > >>>>> I agreed, the changing of variables in a sub-shell won't affect the > >>>>> parent's copy, and check will restore the mounts with the untouched > >>>>> options. > >>>>> > >>>>> But the problem is that _check_test_fs() will cycle mount TEST_DEV with > >>>>> MOUNT_OPTIONS not TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS, so if you have different mount > >>>>> options set for TEST_DEV and SCRATCH_DEV, you'll see mount options > >>>>> changed for TEST_DEV. e.g. > >>>>> > >>>>> MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o dax" TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="" ./check generic/413 generic/445 > >>>>> generic/445 mount TEST_DEV with "-o dax" too > >>>>> > >>>>> MOUNT_OPTIONS="" TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="-o dax" ./check generic/413 generic/445 > >>>>> generic/445 mount TEST_DEV without "-o dax" > >>>>> > >>>>> MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o dax" TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="-o dax" ./check generic/413 generic/445 > >>>>> both tests and both devices mount with "-o dax" > >>>>> > >>>>> That's been discussed in this thread: > >>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9742039/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Omer, can you please confirm if you're hitting this issue? > >>>> I'm not 100% that's the case, so I better describe my settings more clearly: > >>>> I have a debug mount option on my system to recover the FS from a backup. > >>>> When that flag is set, umount writes everything to the backup. > >>>> Mount restores from it, overwriting everything. > >>> If you're testing with setting your debug mount option to both > >>> TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS and MOUNT_OPTIONS, and you still see the failure you > >>> were seeing, then that's a different problem. > >> Yeah, that's what I'm doing, setting both with that flag. > >>>> As long as generic/413 is not involved, everything works well. > >>>> All _test_cycle_mount() calls first back everything up on umount, > >>>> then restore upon mount. So I get the same FS contents. > >>>> > >>>> But, consider generic/118 running after generic/413: > >>>> - generic/413 finishes with a mount point with no mount options > >>>> - generic/118 begins with restored TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS, as you've pointed out. > >>>> - some writes are performed to the FS > >>>> - next _test_cycle_mount: > >>>> calls umount w/o backing up (debug flag previously unset by generic/413). > >>> Does this clear the backup too? If so, I suspect TEST_DEV got cleared on > >>> first mount with the debug option in generic/118, because the backup has > >>> been cleared in the _test_cycle_mount call in generic/413. > >> Yeah the backup is cleared, which is normal behavior when the debug flag is off. > >> And exactly, it's generic/413 clearing the flag from the mount point, > >> that's caused this. > > IMHO, in this case fstests doesn't do anything wrong, all the mount > > options are restored when running the next test, it's just not > > compatible with your debug option and workflow. > But the mount options are not restored when running the next test... > Only the first _test_cycle_mount restores them. > In case I haven't made myself clear, here's a final demonstration. > If you still think this is valid, I'll back down :) > > I've edited generic/118 locally, and after _require_test_reflink, I've added: > mount | grep $TEST_DIR > Just to see the mount options the TEST FS has. > > I've also put aside my debug option, and used -o strictatime instead. > If I mount w/o special options, I get the "relatime" mount option as default. > If I mount with -o strictatime, I do not see "relatime". Now back to fstests: I assume you still set "-o strictatime" to both TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS and MOUNT_OPTIONS, so all went well so far. > > If the order of run is generic/118 followed by generic/413, > Then generic/118 does NOT print "relatime" in its options, because strictatime > is active. Yeah, I saw the same result, which was also expected. > However, if the order of run is reversed, then "relatime" IS printed, because > the TEST FS' was left with default mount options by generic/413. I saw different result here, generic/118 didn't print relatime for me. [root@ibm-x3550m3-05 xfstests]# TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="-o strictatime" MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o strictatime" ./check generic/413 generic/118 FSTYP -- xfs (debug) PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 ibm-x3550m3-05 4.14.0-rc7 MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -bsize=4096 /dev/sdc2 MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o strictatime /dev/sdc2 /mnt/testarea/scratch generic/413 1s ... - output mismatch (see /root/xfstests/results//generic/413.out.bad) --- tests/generic/413.out 2017-10-11 18:15:46.720424655 +0800 +++ /root/xfstests/results//generic/413.out.bad 2017-11-02 20:02:39.546307209 +0800 @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@ QA output created by 413 +/dev/sdc1 on /mnt/testarea/test type xfs (rw,seclabel,attr2,inode64,noquota) # right after _require_test +/dev/sdc1 on /mnt/testarea/test type xfs (rw,relatime,attr2,inode64,noquota) # after _cycle_test_mount Silence is golden ... (Run 'diff -u tests/generic/413.out /root/xfstests/results//generic/413.out.bad' to see the entire diff) generic/118 0s ... - output mismatch (see /root/xfstests/results//generic/118.out.bad) --- tests/generic/118.out 2017-10-11 18:15:46.644423183 +0800 +++ /root/xfstests/results//generic/118.out.bad 2017-11-02 20:02:41.080336481 +0800 @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ QA output created by 118 +/dev/sdc1 on /mnt/testarea/test type xfs (rw,seclabel,attr2,inode64,noquota) # right after _require_test_reflink Create the original files +/dev/sdc1 on /mnt/testarea/test type xfs (rw,attr2,inode64,noquota) # after _cycle_test_mount Note that I hacked 'check' too to not sort the tests by seq number. Did I miss anything? Thanks, Eryu > > So, generic/118's start conditions depend on its predecessor. > Is that valid for TEST fs mount options? > > > > >>>> calls mount WITH the debug flag, and recovers from an empty backup, > >>>> deleting the earlier writes. > >>>> - subsequent md5sum fails on "No such file or directory", as FS is now empty. > >>>> > >>>>> I think fixing _check_<fs>_filesystem() is the correct way. And I guess > >>>>> we can refactor out a common function and call it in > >>>>> _check_[xfs|btrfs|generic]_filesystem, pass the correct mount options > >>>>> based on what device we're working on. > >>>> If indeed we're talking about the same problem, > >>>> please let me know if you'd like me to prepare a different patch. > >>> Sure, really appreciated if you can prepare a different patch, even if > >>> it's not the same problem :) > >> Ok. > >> But are we in agreement that there are 2 different issues here? > > Yes, the problem you hit is different with the issue I described above. > > > >> If so, please let me know what you think of this patch, > >> which does resolve that issue I had originally (at least locally for me). > > I prefer not merging your patch, sorry. Because in this specific case, > > from fstests' point of view, it's all doing well and everything works as > > expected. > > > >> And I'll explore the issue with check_test_fs and the different mount options, > >> based on what you've both written here and the thread you've pointed to. > >> I'll send another patch to address that later. > > Thanks a lot! > > > > 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 > -- 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
