On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:13:06AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:15:40PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:40:56PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > ... > >> > > If you're going to start using this mess, you probably ought to just > >> > > pull from my github trees. The kernel patches[1] should apply against > >> > > 4.10-rc2. xfsprogs[2] and xfstests[3] can be found in their usual > >> > > places. > >> > > > > Darick, > > Not sure if this is interesting, but I had to 'make realclean' to xfsprogs, > for make to build xfs_scrub (make clean was not enough). > Is this the standard practice for building xfsprogs after checking out > a new branch? > > >> > > The patches have survived all auto group xfstests both with scrub-only > >> > > mode and also a special debugging mode to xfs_scrub that forces it to > >> > > rebuild the metadata structures even if they're not damaged. Since the > >> > > last patch release, I have now had time to run the new tests in [3] that > >> > > try to fuzz every field in every data structure on disk. > >> > > > >> > > >> > Darrick, > >> > > >> > I started running the dangerous_scrub group yersterday and it's killing my > >> > test machine. The test machine is x86_64 (i5-3470) 16GB RAM > >> > and test partitions are 100GB volume on spinning disk. > >> > > >> > xfs_db swaps my system to death and most of the tests it eventually > >> > gets shot down by oom killer. > >> > > >> > Is that surprising to you? > >> > >> Yes. > > > > I hit OOM too in xfs/1301. (I ran xfs/13??, xfs/1300 passed and 1301 > > oom'ed the host, I haven't run other tests yet.) > > > > xfs/1300 passed for me as well. Note that it passed both with > kernel scrubbing disabled and eanbled (XFS_DEBUG=y), but with kernel > scrubbing it ran 7 seconds on my machine, while without kernel scrubbing > it ran 70 seconds. > > Eryu, you mentioned that you do not use XFS_DEBUG=y on a previous > thread. Did you turn it on for the scrubbing tests? Although I think tests > should be run with and without kernel scrubbing support. right? You're right, I didn't turn on XFS_DEBUG, and I agreed that I should run tests with and without online scurb support. I just haven't gone that far yet. Thanks for the reminder! Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
