On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 10:29:05AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 10:02 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 09:58:09AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > I imagine that ext4 could also be burned by this.
> > > Do we have a reason to limit this requirement to xfs?
> > > I prefer to make it generic.
> >
> > The whole idea that discard zeroes data is just completely broken.
> > Discard is a hint that is explicitly allowed to do nothing.
>
> I figured you'd say something like that :)
> but since we are talking about dm-thin as a solution for predictable
> behavior at the moment and this sanity check helps avoiding adding
> new tests that can fail to some extent, is the proposed bandaid good enough
> to keep those tests alive until a better solution is proposed?
>
> Another concern that I have is that perhaps adding dm-thin to the fsx tests
> would change timing of io in a subtle way and hide the original bugs that they
> caught:
>
> 47c7d0b19502 ("xfs: fix incorrect log_flushed on fsync")
> 3af423b03435 ("xfs: evict CoW fork extents when performing finsert/fcollapse")
> 51e3ae81ec58 ("ext4: fix interaction between i_size, fallocate, and
> delalloc after a crash")
>
> Because at the time I (re)wrote Josef's fsx tests, they flushed out the bugs
> on spinning rust much more frequently than on SSD.
>
> So Brian, if you could verify that the fsx tests still catch the original bugs
> by reverting the fixes or running with an old kernel and probably running
> on a slow disk that would be great.
>
I made these particular changes because it's how we previously addressed
generic/482 and they were a pretty clear and quick way to address the
problem. I'm pretty sure I've seen these tests reproduce legitimate
issues with or without thin, but that's from memory so I can't confirm
that with certainty or suggest that applies for every regression these
have discovered in the past.
If we want to go down that path, I'd say lets just assume those no
longer reproduce. That doesn't make these tests any less broken on XFS
(v5, at least) today, so I guess I'd drop the thin changes (note again
that generic/482 is already using dmthinp) and just disable these tests
on XFS until we can come up with an acceptable solution to make them
more reliable. That's slightly unfortunate because I think the tests are
quite effective, but we're continuing to see spurious failures that are
not trivial to diagnose.
IIRC, I did at one point experiment with removing the (128M?) physical
zeroing limit from the associated logwrites tool, but that somewhat
predictably caused the test to take an extremely long time. I'm not sure
I even allowed it to finish, tbh. Anyways, perhaps some options are to
allow a larger physical zeroing limit and remove the tests from the auto
group, use smaller target devices to reduce the amount of zeroing
required, require the user to have a thinp or some such volume as a
scratch dev already or otherwise find some other more efficient zeroing
mechanism.
> I know it is not a simple request, but I just don't know how else to trust
> these changes. I guess a quick way for you to avoid the hassle is to add
> _require_discard_zeroes (patch #1) and drop the rest.
>
That was going to be my fallback suggestion if the changes to the tests
were problematic for whatever reason. Christoph points out that the
discard zeroing logic is not predictable in general as it might be on
dm-thinp, so I think for now we should probably just notrun these on
XFS. I'll send something like that as a v2 of patch 1.
Brian
> Thanks,
> Amir.
>
