On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:29:22AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 07:09:09AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:34:03PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > I believe you reproduced a problem with your customized realtime variant > > > of the initial test. I've not been able to reproduce any test failures > > > with patch 2 here, though I have tried to streamline the test a bit to > > > reduce unnecessary bits (patch 1 still reproduces the original > > > problems). I also don't tend to test much with rt, so it's possible my > > > config is off somehow or another. Otherwise I _think_ I've included the > > > necessary changes for rt support in the test itself. > > > > > > Thoughts? I'd like to figure out what might be going on there before > > > this should land.. > > > > Darrick mentioned that was just with his rt group patchset, which > > make sense as we don't have per-group metadata without that. > > > > Ah, that would explain it then. > > > Anyway, the series looks good to me, and I think it supersedes my > > more targeted hand crafted reproducer. > > > > Ok, thanks. It would be nice if anybody who knows more about the rt > group stuff could give the rt test a quick whirl and just confirm it's > at least still effective in that known broken case after my tweaks. > Otherwise I'll wait on any feedback on the code/test itself... thanks. Perplexingly, I tried this out on the test fleet last night and got zero failures except for torvalds TOT. Oh, I don't have any recoveryloop VMs that also have rt enabled, maybe that's why 610 didn't pop anywhere. --D > Brian >
