On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 02:40:40PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > Eryu, > I've noticed that these tests fails under what I think is a normal > config (BRD of 48G). We have an expectation that for simple configs all > tests in the 'auto' group should pass, and these ones don't. Are these > false positive failures? If so, what do we need to do to remove these > false positives? a) fix the tests to handle these cases b) remove the > tests from the 'auto' group? Something else? Attached file with test > outputs. I think some if not all of these failures have lasted many > kernel versions. > > # xfs > generic/009 > generic/012 > generic/016 > generic/021 > generic/022 > generic/058 > generic/060 > generic/061 > generic/063 > generic/092 > generic/255 > xfs/167 > xfs/191-input-validation > xfs/242 > xfs/252 > xfs/432 Except for xfs/191, these all look to be extent mapping failures. i.e. there's one bug or config issue that is causing them all. > # ext4 > generic/388 > > > -- > > Dave Jiang > Software Engineer, SSG/OTC > Intel Corp. > dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx > # XFS failures > > # ./check generic/009 > FSTYP -- xfs (non-debug) > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 skx-ntbusd 4.15.0+ > MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -bsize=4096 /dev/ram0p2 > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/ram0p2 /mnt/xfstests_scratch > > generic/009 - output mismatch (see /root/xfstests/xfstests-dev/results//generic/009.out.bad) > --- tests/generic/009.out 2016-09-09 09:30:36.006800609 -0700 > +++ /root/xfstests/xfstests-dev/results//generic/009.out.bad 2018-02-05 13:24:23.702640408 -0700 > @@ -1,79 +1,75 @@ > QA output created by 009 > 1. into a hole > -0: [0..7]: hole > -1: [8..23]: unwritten > -2: [24..39]: hole > +0: [0..4095]: unwritten You're getting a 2MB extent allocated here. I'm guessing your testdev is configured with a 2MB extent size hint or something similar left over from trying to test DAX w/ 2MB huge pages? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
