On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 11:53:02AM +0800, Shiyang Ruan wrote: > > > 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. Oh. Yeah. mkfs is from the xfsprogs for-next branch, with 6.6 kernel libxfs stuff backported, as well as the defaults changed to turn on rmapbt by default. Sorry about that omission. > 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. Probably not. FWIW the simulated pmem is a ~9.8GB tmpfs file that's passed through to qemu via the libvirt xml stuff that sets up pmem. If your pmem is larger (or real pmem!) then you likely get a bigger log and hence lower chance of that message. > > > > > > > > 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~ Nope. Last night's run was clean. > > > > 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. Hmm. I'm theorizing that generic/269 was merely tripping over some pmem page that has corrupted state. > > > 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? $ make vmlinux W=123e You probably don't want the 'e' part since that'll fail the build on any warning. The actual warnings turned on by levels 1-3 vary depending on the compiler (gcc 12.3.0 here). --D > > > -- > Thanks, > Ruan. > > > > > --D > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Ruan. > > > > > > > > > > > --D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Ruan.
