On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 11:09:59PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:14:03AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Make it so that we can run recovery loop tests for an exact number of
> > seconds.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > common/rc | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > tests/generic/019 | 1 +
> > tests/generic/388 | 2 +-
> > tests/generic/475 | 2 +-
> > tests/generic/482 | 5 +++++
> > tests/generic/648 | 8 ++++----
> > 6 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> > index e89b0a3794..090f3d4938 100644
> > --- a/common/rc
> > +++ b/common/rc
> > @@ -5078,6 +5078,40 @@ _save_coredump()
> > $COREDUMP_COMPRESSOR -f "$out_file"
> > }
> >
> > +# Decide if a soak test should continue looping. The sole parameter is the
> > +# number of soak loops that the test wants to run by default. The actual
> > +# loop iteration number is stored in SOAK_LOOPIDX until the loop completes.
> > +#
> > +# If the test runner set a SOAK_DURATION value, this predicate will keep
> > +# looping until it has run for at least that long.
> > +_soak_loop_running() {
> > + local max_soak_loops="$1"
> > +
> > + test -z "$SOAK_LOOPIDX" && SOAK_LOOPIDX=1
> > +
> > + if [ -n "$SOAK_DURATION" ]; then
> > + if [ -z "$SOAK_DEADLINE" ]; then
> > + SOAK_DEADLINE="$(( $(date +%s) + SOAK_DURATION))"
> > + fi
> > +
> > + local now="$(date +%s)"
> > + if [ "$now" -gt "$SOAK_DEADLINE" ]; then
> > + unset SOAK_DEADLINE
> > + unset SOAK_LOOPIDX
> > + return 1
> > + fi
> > + SOAK_LOOPIDX=$((SOAK_LOOPIDX + 1))
> > + return 0
> > + fi
> > +
> > + if [ "$SOAK_LOOPIDX" -gt "$max_soak_loops" ]; then
> > + unset SOAK_LOOPIDX
> > + return 1
> > + fi
> > + SOAK_LOOPIDX=$((SOAK_LOOPIDX + 1))
> > + return 0
> > +}
> > +
> > init_rc
> >
> > ################################################################################
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/019 b/tests/generic/019
> > index b68dd90c0d..b81c1d17ba 100755
> > --- a/tests/generic/019
> > +++ b/tests/generic/019
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ _cleanup()
> > }
> >
> > RUN_TIME=$((20+10*$TIME_FACTOR))
> > +test -n "$SOAK_DURATION" && RUN_TIME="$SOAK_DURATION"
> > NUM_JOBS=$((4*LOAD_FACTOR))
> > BLK_DEV_SIZE=`blockdev --getsz $SCRATCH_DEV`
> > FILE_SIZE=$((BLK_DEV_SIZE * 512))
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/388 b/tests/generic/388
> > index 9cd737e8eb..4a5be6698c 100755
> > --- a/tests/generic/388
> > +++ b/tests/generic/388
> > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ _scratch_mkfs >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > _require_metadata_journaling $SCRATCH_DEV
> > _scratch_mount
> >
> > -for i in $(seq 1 $((50 * TIME_FACTOR)) ); do
> > +while _soak_loop_running $((50 * TIME_FACTOR)); do
> > ($FSSTRESS_PROG $FSSTRESS_AVOID -d $SCRATCH_MNT -n 999999 -p 4 >> $seqres.full &) \
> > > /dev/null 2>&1
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/475 b/tests/generic/475
> > index c426402ede..0cbf5131c2 100755
> > --- a/tests/generic/475
> > +++ b/tests/generic/475
> > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ _require_metadata_journaling $SCRATCH_DEV
> > _dmerror_init
> > _dmerror_mount
> >
> > -for i in $(seq 1 $((50 * TIME_FACTOR)) ); do
> > +while _soak_loop_running $((50 * TIME_FACTOR)); do
> > ($FSSTRESS_PROG $FSSTRESS_AVOID -d $SCRATCH_MNT -n 999999 -p $((LOAD_FACTOR * 4)) >> $seqres.full &) \
> > > /dev/null 2>&1
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/482 b/tests/generic/482
> > index 28c83a232e..b980826b14 100755
> > --- a/tests/generic/482
> > +++ b/tests/generic/482
> > @@ -62,8 +62,13 @@ nr_cpus=$("$here/src/feature" -o)
> > if [ $nr_cpus -gt 8 ]; then
> > nr_cpus=8
> > fi
> > +
> > fsstress_args=$(_scale_fsstress_args -w -d $SCRATCH_MNT -n 512 -p $nr_cpus \
> > $FSSTRESS_AVOID)
> > +
> > +# XXX dm-logwrites pins kernel memory for every write!
> > +# test -n "$SOAK_DURATION" && fsstress_args="$fsstress_args --duration=$SOAK_DURATION"
>
> Do you expect the second comment is a comment?
Actually... I'd like to withdraw this chunk so that people aren't
tempted to uncomment it. I had previously wanted generic/482 to be a
SOAK_DURATION controllable test, but all that does is increase kernel
memory usage until the VM OOMs, and it OOMs pretty quickly if you don't
provision it with the same amount of RAM as the fs is writing to disk.
I'll repost this without the changes to g/482.
--D
> Others looks good to me. I'll test V2 and merge it if no regression from it.
>
> Thanks,
> Zorro
>
