Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx> writes: > Hello, > > We have been doing pretty well at populating xfstests with loads of > tests to catch regressions and validate we're all working properly. One > thing that has been lacking is a good way to verify file system > integrity after a power fail. This is a core part of what file systems > are supposed to provide but it is probably the least tested aspect. We > have dm-flakey tests in xfstests to test fsync correctness, but these > tests do not catch the random horrible things that can go wrong. We are > still finding horrible scary things that go wrong in Btrfs because it is > simply hard to reproduce and test for. > > I have been working on an idea to do this better, some may have seen my > dm-power-fail attempt, and I've got a new incarnation of the idea thanks > to discussions with Zach Brown. Obviously there will be a lot changing > in this area in the time between now and March but it would be good to > have everybody in the room talking about what they would need to build a > good and deterministic test to make sure we're always giving a > consistent file system and to make sure our fsync() handling is working > properly. Thanks, I've submitted generic/019 long time ago. Test is fine and helps to uncover several bugs, But it is not ideal because currently power failure simulation (via fail_make_request) is not not completely atomic So I would like to attend to discussion how we can implement power failure simulation completely atomic. BTW I also would like to share hw-flush utility (which our QA team use for use power-fail/SSD-cache testing) and harness for it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
