Re: [PATCH] xfs: drop experimental warning for FSDAX

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

 





在 2023/10/10 0:47, Darrick J. Wong 写道:
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 10:14:12PM +0800, Shiyang Ruan wrote:


在 2023/10/6 0:05, Darrick J. Wong 写道:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 04:53:12PM +0800, Shiyang Ruan wrote:


在 2023/10/5 8:08, Darrick J. Wong 写道:

Sorry, I sent the list below to Chandan, didn't cc the maillist
because it's just a rough list rather than a PR:


1. subject: [v3]  xfs: correct calculation for agend and blockcount
      url:
      https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20230913102942.601271-1-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx/
      note:    This one is a fix patch for commit: 5cf32f63b0f4 ("xfs:
      fix the calculation for "end" and "length"").
               It can solve the fail of xfs/55[0-2]: the programs
               accessing the DAX file may not be notified as expected,
              because the length always 1 block less than actual.  Then
             this patch fixes this.


2. subject: [v15] mm, pmem, xfs: Introduce MF_MEM_PRE_REMOVE for unbind
      url:
      https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20230928103227.250550-1-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
      note:    This is a feature patch.  It handles the pre-remove event
      of DAX device, by notifying kernel/user space before actually
     removing.
               It has been picked by Andrew in his
               mm-hotfixes-unstable. I am not sure whether you or he will
              merge this one.


3. subject: [v1]  xfs: drop experimental warning for FSDAX
      url:
      https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20230915063854.1784918-1-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx/
      note:    With the patches mentioned above, I did a lot of tests,
      including xfstests and blackbox tests, the FSDAX function looks
     good now.  So I think the experimental warning could be dropped.

Darrick/Dave, Could you please review the above patch and let us know if you
have any objections?

The first two patches are ok.  The third one ... well I was about to say
ok but then this happened with generic/269 on a 6.6-rc4 kernel and those
two patches applied:

Hi Darrick,

Thanks for testing.  I just tested this case (generic/269) on v6.6-rc4 with
my 3 patches again, but it didn't fail.  Such WARNING message didn't show in
dmesg too.

My local.config is shown as below:
[nodax_reflink]
export FSTYP=xfs
export TEST_DEV=/dev/pmem0
export TEST_DIR=/mnt/test
export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/pmem1
export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch
export MKFS_OPTIONS="-m reflink=1,rmapbt=1"

[dax_reflink]
export FSTYP=xfs
export TEST_DEV=/dev/pmem0
export TEST_DIR=/mnt/test
export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/pmem1
export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch
export MKFS_OPTIONS="-m reflink=1,rmapbt=1"
export MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o dax"
export TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS="-o dax"

And tools version are:
   - xfstests (v2023.09.03)

Same here.

   - xfsprogs (v6.4.0)

I have a newer branch, though it only contains resyncs with newer kernel
versions and bugfixes.

Could you show me more info (such as kernel config, local.config) ?  So that
I can find out what exactly is going wrong.

The full xml output from fstests is here:

https://djwong.org/fstests/output/.fa9f295c6a2dd4426aa26b4d74e8e0299ad2307507547d5444c157f0e883df92/.2e718425eda716ad848ae05dfab82a670af351f314e26b3cb658a929331bf2eb/result.xml

I think the key difference between your setup and mine is that
MKFS_OPTIONS includes '-d daxinherit=1' and MOUNT_OPTIONS do not include
-o dax.  That shouldn't make any difference, though.

A little strange thing I found:
According to the result.xml, the MKFS_OPTIONS didn't include -m rmapbt=1:
    <property name="MKFS_OPTIONS" value=" -d daxinherit=1,"/>
mkfs.xfs will turn on reflink by default, but won't turn on rmapbt. Then xfs/55[0-2] should be "not run" because they have _require_xfs_scratch_rmapbt.


Also, this alert message didn't show in my tests:
[ 6047.876110] XFS (pmem1): xlog_verify_grant_tail: space > BBTOB(tail_blocks)
But I don't think it is related.


Also: In the weeks leading up to me adding the PREREMOVE patches a
couple of days ago, no test (generic/269 or otherwise) hit that ASSERT.

Has it failed again since this time? If so, please sent me the result.xml because it is needed for analyze. Thank you~

I'm wondering if that means that the preremove code isn't shooting down
a page mapping or something?

Grepping through the result.xml reveals:

$ grep -E '(generic.269|xfs.55[012])' /tmp/result.xml
563:    <testcase classname="xfstests.global" name="xfs/550" time="2">
910:    <testcase classname="xfstests.global" name="xfs/552" time="2">
1685:   <testcase classname="xfstests.global" name="generic/269" time="23">
1686:           <failure message="_check_dmesg: something found in dmesg (see /var/tmp/fstests/generic/269.dmesg)" type="TestFail"/>
1689:[ 6046.844058] run fstests generic/269 at 2023-10-04 15:26:57
2977:   <testcase classname="xfstests.global" name="xfs/551" time="2">

So it's possible that 550 or 552 messed this up for us. :/

See attached kconfig.

Thanks for the info.  I tried to make my environment same as yours, but
still couldn't reproduce the fail.  I also let xfs/550 & xfs/552 ran before
generic/269.

[root@f38 xfst]# ./check -s nodax_reflink -r xfs/550 xfs/552 generic/269
SECTION       -- nodax_reflink
FSTYP         -- xfs (debug)
PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64 f38 6.6.0-rc4 #365 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Sun Oct
8 15:19:36 CST 2023
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1 -d daxinherit=1 /dev/pmem1
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o usrquota,grpquota,prjquota, /dev/pmem1 /mnt/scratch

xfs/550 2s ...  2s
xfs/552 2s ...  1s
generic/269 22s ...  23s
Ran: xfs/550 xfs/552 generic/269
Passed all 3 tests

SECTION       -- nodax_reflink
=========================
Ran: xfs/550 xfs/552 generic/269
Passed all 3 tests


And xfs/269 is testing fsstress & dd on a scratch device at the same time.
It won't reach the PREREMOVE code or xfs' notify failure code.

I'd like to know what your git tree looks like, is it *v6.6-rc4 + my patches
only* ?  Does it contain other patches?

No other patches, aside from turning on selected W=123e warnings.

I don't know what does this mean: "selected W=123e warnings". How could I turn on this config?


--
Thanks,
Ruan.


--D


--
Thanks,
Ruan.


--D



--
Thanks,
Ruan.



[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