On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 05:58:18PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 10:17:10PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> >
> > *Big Note*
> > When I am testing this patch series, I found some regressions in dev branch.
> > Here is a note. These regressions could be hitted by running test case
> > serveral times. So If we just run xfstests one time, they could be missed.
> >
> > - xfstests #74 with data=journal
> >
> > - xfstests #247 with data=journal
> > Some warning messages are printed by ext4_releasepage. We hit
> > WARN_ON(PageChecked(page)) in this function. But the test case itself can
> > pass.
> >
> > - xfstests #269 with dioread_nolock
> > The system will hang
>
> I'm going to guess that you were running this using your SSD test
> setup? I just ran:
Yes, I run these tests in my SSD setup.
>
> kvm-xfstests -c data_journal 74,74,74,74,74,247,247,247,247,247
>
> using my standard hdd setup, and didn't see any failures or warnings.
I use the following commands to hit thses warnings.
for i in {0..9}
do
./chech 74
done
>
> How frequently are you seeing these failures? When I have a chance
> I'll try running these tests with a tmpfs image and see if I have any
> better luck reproducing the problem there.
>
> I did manage to get a hang (preceded with a soft lockup for the
> dioread_nolock with test 269).
>
> > - xfstests #83 with bigalloc
> > Some threads could be blocked for 120s.
>
> I've seen this test blocked for hours (but without managing to trigger
> the 120s soft lockup warning), but I'm not entirely sure this was a
> regression. I believe I've seen a similar hang with 3.8.0-rc3 if I
> recall correctly. I had been hoping the changes with the extent
> status tree would fix it, but apparently no such luck. :-(
>
> > I don't paste full details here to make description clearly. I will go on
> > tracing these problems. I am happy to provide full details if some one
> > want to take a close look at these problems.
>
> If you have a chance, please do send e-mails with each failure
> separated out in a separate e-mail with different subject line so it's
> easier for others to follow along.
I will run the test case in 3.8 kernel to understand which one is a
regression, and which one is a bug that has been there for a long time.
Later I will send the report to the mailing list. Thanks for sharing
the result with me.
Regards,
- Zheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
