On 2018年02月26日 16:45, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 2018年02月26日 16:33, Amir Goldstein wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2018年02月26日 16:15, Amir Goldstein wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> This test case is originally designed to expose unexpected corruption >>>>>> for btrfs, where there are several reports about btrfs serious metadata >>>>>> corruption after power loss. >>>>>> >>>>>> The test case itself will trigger heavy fsstress for the fs, and use >>>>>> dm-flakey to emulate power loss by dropping all later writes. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Come on... dm-flakey is so 2016 >>>>> You should take Josef's fsstress+log-writes test and bring it to fstests: >>>>> https://github.com/josefbacik/log-writes >>>>> >>>>> By doing that you will gain two very important features from the test: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Problems will be discovered much faster, because the test can run fsck >>>>> after every single block write has been replayed instead of just at random >>>>> times like in your test >>>> >>>> That's what exactly I want!!! >>>> >>>> Great thanks for this one! I would definitely look into this. >>>> (Although the initial commit is even older than 2016) >>>> >>> >>> Please note that Josef's replay-individual-faster.sh script runs fsck >>> every 1000 writes (i.e. --check 1000), so you can play with this argument >>> in your test. Can also run --fsck every --check fua or --check flush, which >>> may be more indicative of real world problems. not sure. >>> >>>> >>>> But the test itself could already expose something on EXT4, it still >>>> makes some sense for ext4 developers as a verification test case. >>>> >>> >>> Please take a look at generic/456 >>> When generic/455 found a reproduciable problem in ext4, >>> I created a specific test without any randomness to pin point the >>> problem found (using dm-flakey). >>> If the problem you found is reproduciable, then it will be easy for you >>> to create a similar "bisected" test. >> >> Yep, it's definitely needed for a pin-point test case, but I'm also >> wondering if a random, stress test could also help. >> >> Test case with plain fsstress is already super helpful to expose some >> bugs, such stress test won't hurt. >> > > > Yes, but the same stress test with dm-log-writes instead of dm-flakey > will be as useful and much more, so no reason to merge the less useful > stress test. OK, I'll try to use dm-log to enhance the test case. Thanks, Qu > > Thanks, > Amir. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
