On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 02:15:20PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 11:02:09AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 04:09:17PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 12:22:16PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 03:51:30PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > This patchset introduces the ability to run fstests concurrently > > > > > instead of serially as the current check script does. A git branch > > > > > containing this patchset can be pulled from here: > > > > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/xfstests-dev.git check-parallel > > > > > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > > > I've merged your "check-parallel" branch, and rebase on fstests' > > > > patches-in-queue branch (which is nearly the next release). I just > > > > pushed a new branch "for-dave-check-parallel" which fixed all > > > > conflicts. It'll be "next next" release, feel free to update base > > > > on that. I'll test that branch too :) > > > > > > I ran this through my test infrastructure at zorro's request. I saw a > > > bunch of loop dev errors trickle out: > > > > > > --- xfs/129.out > > > +++ xfs/129.out.bad > > > @@ -2,3 +2,6 @@ > > > Create the original file blocks > > > Reflink every other block > > > Create metadump file, restore it and check restored fs > > > +losetup: /dev/loop0: detach failed: No such device or address > > > +Cannot destroy loop device /dev/loop0 > > > +(see /var/tmp/fstests/xfs/129.full for details) > > > > Almost certainly I missed the conversion of names in > > _xfs_verify_metadump_v1() from "data_loop" to "md_data_loop_dev" > > and such. common/metadump is liley missing "unset md_data_loop_dev" > > after destroying the loop devices, too. > > > > Not sure why that isn't triggering on my setup, trivial to fix. I'll > > sort it out and fold it back into the original loopdev cleanup > > patch in the set. > > > > > and I noticed the runtimes for running serially went way up. > > > > Not seeing that here; I don't think any of the changes I've made > > should affect the runtime of a normal check test pass; the tests > > should take the same time to run or run faster after this patchset, > > even serially... > > Hi Dave, > > I replied several emails for this issue: > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20241207195101.hfg3m4pgghoo7ebv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#mb1da5dddd053dcd5ed8ec15c45ce8e3fa55c2d38 > > I've tried to fix this and all other small issues on "for-dave-check-parallel" > branch: > > # git clone -b for-dave-check-parallel git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git > > Could you take a look at it? Currently my test passed on this branch. As > my original plan, I'd like to merge for-dave-check-parallel branch onto > for-next and push in this week. If it fixes the reported failure, then I'm fine with that. Unfortunately, the machine I've been developing this code on has now been dead for a week and a half (main board failure), and the vendor doesn't seem to care about the "NBD on-site" warranty SLA... I have no idea when it'll be fixed, so if what you've done works for everyone else right now, I'll clean up the remaining things I noticed when I've got the machine back up and running and can test this stuff again... -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
