On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 10:36:04AM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 4:22 AM Shinichiro Kawasaki > <shinichiro.kawasaki@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sep 04, 2022 / 21:15, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 06:43:29PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > > > While investigating some of the other issues that have been > > > > reported lately, I've found that my v6.0-rc3 NFS/TCP client > > > > goes off the rails often (but not always) during generic/650. > > > > > > > > This is the test that runs a workload while offlining and > > > > onlining CPUs. My test client has 12 physical cores. > > > > > > > > The test appears to start normally, but then after a bit > > > > the NFS server workload drops to zero and the NFS mount > > > > disappears. I can't run programs (sudo, for example) on > > > > the client. Can't log in, even on the console. The console > > > > has a constant stream of "can't rotate log: Input/Output > > > > error" type messages. > > > > I also observe this failure when I ran fstests using btrfs on my HDDs. > > The failure is recreated almost always. > > I'm wondering what do you get in dmesg, any traces? > > I've excluded the test from my runs for over an year now, due to some > crash that I reported > to the mm and cpu hotplug people here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAL3q7H4AyrZ5erimDyO7mOVeppd5BeMw3CS=wGbzrMZrp56ktA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Unfortunately I had no reply from anyone who works or maintains those > subsystems. > > It didn't happen very often, and I haven't tested again with recent kernels. I've been testing with xfs/btrfs/ext4 nightly, and haven't seen any problems with the last two. There's some very infrequent log accounting problem that is probably a regression from Dave's recent round of log refactorings, so once we're clear of the write race corruption problem, I intend to inquire about that. Granted I also don't have hundreds-of-cpus machines to test this kind of stuff, so I don't know how well hotplug mania fares on a big iron. I don't think it's valid to remove a test from the auto group because it uncovers bugs. If test runner folks want to put it in their own exclude lists for their own convenience, that's fine with me. --D > > > > > > > > > > I haven't looked further into this yet. Actually I'm not > > > > quite sure where to start looking. > > > > > > > > I recently switched this client from a local /home to an > > > > NFS-mounted one, and that's where the xfstests are built > > > > and run from, fwiw. > > > > > > If most of users complain generic/650, I'd like to exclude g/650 from the > > > "auto" default run group. Any more points? > > > > +1. I wish to remove it from the "auto" group. Since I can not login to the test > > machine after the failure, I suggest to put it in the "dangerous" group. > > > > -- > > Shin'ichiro Kawasaki
