On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:44:05AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > Hi Brian, > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:46:19PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > XFS is susceptible to log recovery problems if the fs crashes under > > certain circumstances. If the tail has been pinned for long enough > > to the log to fill and the next batch of log buffer submissions > > happen to fail, the filesystem shutsdown having potentially > > overwritten part of the range between the last good tail->head range > > in the log. This causes log recovery to fail with crc mismatch or > > invalid log record errors. > > > > This problem is not yet fixed and thus known/expected to fail. At > > this time, this test serves as a reminder that the problem exists > > and a reproducer for future verification purposes. Note that this > > problem is currently only reproducible with larger (non-default) log > > buffer sizes (i.e., '-o logbsize=256k') or smaller block sizes (1k). > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Hi all, > > > > This patch uses the XFS debug kernel mechanism recently posted for > > review[1] to reproduce an XFS log recovery problem. Note that this test > > depends on the aforementioned patch and thus should not be merged > > until/unless the corresponding kernel patch is merged. > > Any decision made on the kernel side patch? Sorry, I'm a bit lost on the > kernel side discussions. Uhhhh, I think this test is being redone to work with the new xfs errortag mechanism that'll be appearing soon. I will send patches to fix up xfstests momentarily. --D > > Thanks, > 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 -- 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
