Re: xfstests failure generic/239

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



  Hi,

On Thu 01-08-13 10:05:08, Zhao Hongjiang wrote:
> It hit this bug, the "Bug happened!" is come out everytime while the test
> is fail.  Any suggestion for fix this?
  OK, so the test is still failing after using io_end instead of
iocb->private? If yes, I'm not sure where the problem exactly is, sorry.

								Honza

> On 2013/7/31 22:13, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 31-07-13 10:42:37, Zhao Hongjiang wrote:
> >> On 2013/7/30 23:48, Jan Kara wrote:
> >>> On Tue 30-07-13 11:28:58, Zhao Hongjiang wrote:
> >>>> Hi, jack
> >>>>
> >>>> I test the latest kernel 3.11-rc2 and it seems the problem is fix by the
> >>>> follow patch: commit id:97a851ed71cd9cc2542955e92a001c6ea3d21d35 (ext4:
> >>>> use io_end for multiple bios).  But it's so difficult to backport to
> >>>> kernel 3.4-stable, any suggestion for this?
> >>>   Backporting that patch to stable kernels is no-go. It is far to intrusive
> >>> for stable kernels. I was looking for a while how that patch could fix the
> >>> problem you were observing. I think there is a subtle race possible when
> >>> AIO DIO write completes before __blockdev_direct_IO() returns. In that case
> >>> we set iocb->private to NULL in ext4_end_io_dio() but we also key off
> >>> iocb->private in ext4_ext_direct_IO() as:
> >>>                 if (iocb->private)
> >>>                         ext4_inode_aio_set(inode, NULL);
> >>>
> >>> So in the case above we forget to reset inode's AIO pointer. That can then
> >>> cause strange effects with unwritten extent handling (although I admit I'm
> >>> not sure whether it can also cause the failure you observe) and
> >>> 97a851ed71cd9cc2542955e92a001c6ea3d21d35 actually fixes that bug. You can
> >>> easily check whether you are hitting that bug or not by changing the above
> >>> condition from testing iocb->private to testing some private variable...
> >>> E.g. you could declare io_end and set it to NULL one level up in 
> >>> ext4_ext_direct_IO() and then test io_end != NULL in that condition.
> >>>
> >> Thanks for your reply first. 
> >> I change the code like the follow:
> >>
> >> @@ -2921,6 +2921,7 @@ static ssize_t ext4_ext_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb,
> >>         struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
> >>         ssize_t ret;
> >>         size_t count = iov_length(iov, nr_segs);
> >> +       ext4_io_end_t *io_end = NULL;
> >>
> >>         loff_t final_size = offset + count;
> >>         if (rw == WRITE && final_size <= inode->i_size) {
> >> @@ -2947,8 +2948,7 @@ static ssize_t ext4_ext_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb,
> >>                 iocb->private = NULL;
> >>                 EXT4_I(inode)->cur_aio_dio = NULL;
> >>                 if (!is_sync_kiocb(iocb)) {
> >> -                       ext4_io_end_t *io_end =
> >> -                               ext4_init_io_end(inode, GFP_NOFS);
> >> +                       io_end = ext4_init_io_end(inode, GFP_NOFS);
> >>                         if (!io_end)
> >>                                 return -ENOMEM;
> >>                         io_end->flag |= EXT4_IO_END_DIRECT;
> >> @@ -2970,8 +2970,10 @@ static ssize_t ext4_ext_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb,
> >>                                          ext4_end_io_dio,
> >>                                          NULL,
> >>                                          DIO_LOCKING);
> >> -               if (iocb->private)
> >> +               if (io_end != NULL) {
> >> +                       printk("Zhao Hongjiang Ext4 test!\n");
> >>                         EXT4_I(inode)->cur_aio_dio = NULL;
> >> +               }
> >>                 /*
> >>                  * The io_end structure takes a reference to the inode,
> >>                  * that structure needs to be destroyed and the
> >>
> >> And the print come out when i run the test everytime. So i think the test
> >> hit the bug that you mentioned, Am i right or miss something?
> >   It is not a bug that you hit the branch with printk(). It would be a bug
> > if the debug check looked like:
> > 	if (io_end != NULL) {
> > 		if (iocb->private == NULL)
> > 			printk("Bug happened!\n");
> > 		EXT4_I(inode)->cur_aio_dio = NULL;
> > 	}
> > 
> > 								Honza
> > 
> >>>> On 2013/6/9 6:30, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 11:13:35AM +0800, Zhao Hongjiang wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I run xfstests #239 against mainline 3.10.0-rc3, unfortunately it failure in my QEMU. I run the
> >>>>>> case a hundred times, it certainly hit the failure several times. The failure msg is as follow:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> FSTYP         -- ext4
> >>>>>> PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64  3.10.0-rc3-mainline
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> generic/239 1s ... - output mismatch (see /home/zhj/xfstests/results/generic/239.out.bad)
> >>>>>>     --- tests/generic/239.out   2013-06-07 22:04:09.000000000 -0400
> >>>>>>     +++ /home/zff/xfstests/results/generic/239.out.bad  2013-06-07 22:04:09.000000000 -0400
> >>>>>>     @@ -1,2 +1,515 @@
> >>>>>>      QA output created by 239
> >>>>>>     +hostname: Host name lookup failure
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, so this hostname failure is weird; I'm not sure what's causing
> >>>>> this, but this I presume unrelated to the failure at hand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>      Silence is golden
> >>>>>>     +0: 0x0
> >>>>>>     +1: 0x0
> >>>>>>     +2: 0x0
> >>>>>>     +3: 0x0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This indicates a problem.  Test generic/239 is running
> >>>>> aio-dio-hole-filling-race.c, which submits an asynchronous, direct I/O
> >>>>> 4k write with a buffer containing non-zero contents to a sparse file,
> >>>>> and once the I/O has completed, it uses pread to read it back, using
> >>>>> the same descriptor, so it is doing the read using direct I/O.  It
> >>>>> then checks to see if the read returns zero or not.  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The "XX: 0x0" lines indicates that buffer is zero, which implies that
> >>>>> somehow aio_complete() is getting called before the uninitialized to
> >>>>> initialized conversion is taking place.  I'm not seeing how this is
> >>>>> happening, though, so I'm a bit puzzled.  If there are any unwritten
> >>>>> extents, we don't call aio_complete() in ext4_end_io_dio(), but
> >>>>> instead the conversion is queued via a call to ext4_add_compete_io(),
> >>>>> and and aio_done() is only called on the iocb after the conversion is
> >>>>> complete.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can anyone see something that I might be missing?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     	       		      	      - Ted
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P.S.  Zhao, what was the hardware that you using to find this failure?
> >>>>> I'm not seeing it, but then again if the failure is only happening
> >>>>> once every few hundred runs that might explain it.  I'm perhaps
> >>>>> wondering if we should add a mode to aio-dio-hole-filling-race.c which
> >>>>> allows it to try the race a large number of times, instead of just
> >>>>> once.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P.P.S.  One thought.... perhaps it might be useful to have a debug
> >>>>> mode where we use queue_delayed_work() to submit the conversion
> >>>>> request to the workqueue.  It will of course make certain workloads
> >>>>> run slow as molasses, but it might expose some races so we can see
> >>>>> them more easily.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .
> 
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux