Re: [PATCH 8/8] xfs/068: fix variability problems in file/dir count output

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 02:23:52PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:20:46AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:04:11PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > In this test we use fsstress to create some number of files and then
> > > exercise xfsdump/xfsrestore on them.  Depending on the fsstress config
> > > we may end up with a different number of files than is hardcoded in the
> > > golden output (particularly after adding reflink support to fsstress)
> > > and thereby fail the test.  Since we're not really testing how many
> > > files fsstress can create, just turn the counts into XXX/YYY.
> > 
> > Hmmmm. those numbers were in the golden output specifically because
> > fsstress is supposed to be deterministic for a given random seed.
> > What it is supposed to be testing is that xfsdump actually dumped
> > all the files that were created, and xfs-restore was able to process
> > them all. If either barf on a file, they'll silently skip it, and
> > the numbers won't come out properly.
> > 
> > The typical class of bug this test finds is bulkstat iteration
> > problems - if bulkstat misses an inode it shouldn't, then the
> > xfsrestore numbers come out wrong. By making the data set
> > non-deterministic and not checking the numbers, we end up losing the
> > ability of this test to check bulkstat iteration and dump/restore
> > completeness....
> 
> Ah, fun.  Ok, in that case I think the correct fix for this problem is
> to turn off clonerange/deduperange in the fsstress command line so that
> we get back to deterministic(?) counts...

Why aren't the clonerange/deduperange operations deterministic?
Shouldn't these always do the same thing from the POV of
xfsdump/restore?

> ...unless a better solution to count the number of dirs/files and compare
> to whatever xfsrestore says?

Haven't looked recently, but there were reasons for doing it this
way that I don't recall off the top of my head...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux