On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Chris Leech <cleech@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 05:50:12PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 09:46:37PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > >> > > There may be deeper issues. I just started running scalability tests >> > > (e.g. 16-way fsmark create tests) and about a minute in I got a >> > > directory corruption reported - something I hadn't seen in the dev >> > > cycle at all. >> > >> > By "in the dev cycle", do you mean your XFS changes, or have you been >> > tracking the merge cycle at least for some testing? >> >> I mean the three months leading up to the 4.10 merge, when all the >> XFS changes were being tested against 4.9-rc kernels. >> >> The iscsi problem showed up when I updated the base kernel from >> 4.9 to 4.10-current last week to test the pullreq I was going to >> send you. I've been bust with other stuff until now, so I didn't >> upgrade my working trees again until today in the hope the iscsi >> problem had already been found and fixed. >> >> > > I unmounted the fs, mkfs'd it again, ran the >> > > workload again and about a minute in this fired: >> > > >> > > [628867.607417] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> > > [628867.608603] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 16925 at mm/workingset.c:461 shadow_lru_isolate+0x171/0x220 >> > >> > Well, part of the changes during the merge window were the shadow >> > entry tracking changes that came in through Andrew's tree. Adding >> > Johannes Weiner to the participants. >> > >> > > Now, this workload does not touch the page cache at all - it's >> > > entirely an XFS metadata workload, so it should not really be >> > > affecting the working set code. >> > >> > Well, I suspect that anything that creates memory pressure will end up >> > triggering the working set code, so .. >> > >> > That said, obviously memory corruption could be involved and result in >> > random issues too, but I wouldn't really expect that in this code. >> > >> > It would probably be really useful to get more data points - is the >> > problem reliably in this area, or is it going to be random and all >> > over the place. >> >> The iscsi problem is 100% reproducable. create a pair of iscsi luns, >> mkfs, run xfstests on them. iscsi fails a second after xfstests mounts >> the filesystems. >> >> The test machine I'm having all these other problems on? stable and >> steady as a rock using PMEM devices. Moment I go to use /dev/vdc >> (i.e. run load/perf benchmarks) it starts falling over left, right >> and center. > > I'm not reproducing any problems with xfstests running over iscsi_tcp > right now. Two 10G luns exported from an LIO target, attached directly > to a test VM as sda/sdb and xfstests configured to use sda1/sdb1 as > TEST_DEV and SCRATCH_DEV. > > The virtio scatterlist issue that popped right away for me is triggered > by an hdparm ioctl, which is being run by tuned on Fedora. And that > actually seems to happen back on 4.9 as well :( Could you share us what the specific hdparm cmd line is? I tried several random cmds over virtio-blk/virito-scsi, looks not see this problem. Thanks, Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
