On Wed, 6 Apr 2022, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> Good day, Hugh-
Huh! If you were really wishing me a good day, would you tell me this ;-?
>
> I noticed that several fsx-related tests in the xfstests suite are
> failing after updating my NFS server to v5.18-rc1. I normally test
> against xfs, ext4, btrfs, and tmpfs exports. tmpfs is the only export
> that sees these new failures:
>
> generic/075 2s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/075.out.bad)
> --- tests/generic/075.out 2014-02-13 15:40:45.000000000 -0500
> +++ /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/075.out.bad 2022-04-05 16:39:59.145991520 -0400
> @@ -4,15 +4,5 @@
> -----------------------------------------------
> fsx.0 : -d -N numops -S 0
> -----------------------------------------------
> -
> ------------------------------------------------
> -fsx.1 : -d -N numops -S 0 -x
> ------------------------------------------------
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u /home/cel/src/xfstests/tests/generic/075.out /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/075.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
>
> generic/091 9s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/091.out.bad)
> --- tests/generic/091.out 2014-02-13 15:40:45.000000000 -0500
> +++ /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/091.out.bad 2022-04-05 16:41:24.329063277 -0400
> @@ -1,7 +1,75 @@
> QA output created by 091
> fsx -N 10000 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z -R -W
> -fsx -N 10000 -o 8192 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z -R -W
> -fsx -N 10000 -o 32768 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z -R -W
> -fsx -N 10000 -o 8192 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z -R -W
> -fsx -N 10000 -o 32768 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z -R -W
> -fsx -N 10000 -o 128000 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z -W
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u /home/cel/src/xfstests/tests/generic/091.out /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/091.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
>
> generic/112 2s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/112.out.bad)
> --- tests/generic/112.out 2014-02-13 15:40:45.000000000 -0500
> +++ /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/112.out.bad 2022-04-05 16:41:38.511075170 -0400
> @@ -4,15 +4,4 @@
> -----------------------------------------------
> fsx.0 : -A -d -N numops -S 0
> -----------------------------------------------
> -
> ------------------------------------------------
> -fsx.1 : -A -d -N numops -S 0 -x
> ------------------------------------------------
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u /home/cel/src/xfstests/tests/generic/112.out /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/112.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
>
> generic/127 49s ... - output mismatch (see /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/127.out.bad)
> --- tests/generic/127.out 2016-08-28 12:16:20.000000000 -0400
> +++ /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/127.out.bad 2022-04-05 16:42:07.655099652 -0400
> @@ -4,10 +4,198 @@
> === FSX Light Mode, Memory Mapping ===
> All 100000 operations completed A-OK!
> === FSX Standard Mode, No Memory Mapping ===
> -All 100000 operations completed A-OK!
> +ltp/fsx -q -l 262144 -o 65536 -S 191110531 -N 100000 -R -W fsx_std_nommap
> +READ BAD DATA: offset = 0x9cb7, size = 0xfae3, fname = /tmp/mnt/manet.ib-2323703/fsx_std_nommap
> +OFFSET GOOD BAD RANGE
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u /home/cel/src/xfstests/tests/generic/127.out /home/cel/src/xfstests/results//generic/127.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
>
> I bisected the problem to:
>
> 56a8c8eb1eaf ("tmpfs: do not allocate pages on read")
>
> generic/075 fails almost immediately without any NFS-level errors.
> Likely this is data corruption rather than an overt I/O error.
That's sad. Thanks for bisecting and reporting. Sorry for the nuisance.
I suspect this patch is heading for a revert, because I shall not have
time to debug and investigate. Cc'ing fsdevel and a few people who have
an interest in it, to warn of that likely upcoming revert.
But if it's okay with everyone, please may we leave it in for -rc2?
Given that having it in -rc1 already smoked out another issue (problem
of SetPageUptodate(ZERO_PAGE(0)) without CONFIG_MMU), I think keeping
it in a little longer might smoke out even more.
The xfstests info above doesn't actually tell very much, beyond that
generic/075 generic/091 generic/112 generic/127, each a test with fsx,
all fall at their first hurdle. If you have time, please rerun and
tar up the results/generic directory (maybe filter just those failing)
and send as attachment. But don't go to any trouble, it's unlikely
that I shall even untar it - it would be mainly to go on record if
anyone has time to look into it later. And, frankly, it's unlikely
to tell us anything more enlightening, than that the data seen was
not as expected: which we do already know.
I've had no problem with xfstests generic 075,091,112,127 testing
tmpfs here, not before and not in the month or two I've had that
patch in: so it's something in the way that NFS exercises tmpfs
that reveals it. If I had time to duplicate your procedure, I'd be
asking for detailed instructions: but no, I won't have a chance.
But I can sit here and try to guess. I notice fs/nfsd checks
file->f_op->splice_read, and employs fallback if not available:
if you have time, please try rerunning those xfstests on an -rc1
kernel, but with mm/shmem.c's .splice_read line commented out.
My guess is that will then pass the tests, and we shall know more.
What could be going wrong there? I've thought of two possibilities.
A minor, hopefully easily fixed, issue would be if fs/nfsd has
trouble with seeing the same page twice in a row: since tmpfs is
now using the ZERO_PAGE(0) for all pages of a hole, and I think I
caught sight of code which looks to see if the latest page is the
same as the one before. It's easy to imagine that might go wrong.
A more difficult issue would be, if fsx is racing writes and reads,
in a way that it can guarantee the correct result, but that correct
result is no longer delivered: because the writes go into freshly
allocated tmpfs cache pages, while reads are still delivering
stale ZERO_PAGEs from the pipe. I'm hazy on the guarantees there.
But unless someone has time to help out, we're heading for a revert.
Thanks,
Hugh
