On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 08:48:31AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 09:46:53AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm not sure if this is known and/or fixed already, but it didn't look > > familiar so here is a report. I hit a splat when testing Willy's > > prospective folio bookmark change and it turns out it replicates on > > Linus' current master (551acdc3c3d2). This initially reproduced on > > xfs/264 (mkfs defaults) and I saw a soft lockup warning variant via > > xfs/006, but when I attempted to reproduce the latter a second time I > > hit what looks like the same problem as xfs/264. Both tests seem to > > involve some form of error injection, so possibly the same underlying > > problem. The GPF splat from xfs/264 is below. > > On a side note, I'm wondering if we should add xfs/006 and xfs/264 > to the recoveryloop group - they do a shutdown under load and a > followup mount to ensure the filesystem gets recovered before > the test ends and the fs is checked, so while thy don't explicitly > test recovery, they do exercise it.... > > Thoughts? Someone else asked about this the other day, and I proposed a 'recovery' group for tests that don't run in a loop. --D > > -Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
