xfstests failure generic/299
Hi Dmitry,
I've been noticing that the relatively new test #299 (which I didn't use in the previous development cycle) is failing for me, both for the current ext4 dev branch, as well as v3.9-rc5-1-g8cde7ad (the origin/branch point from Linus's tree for the dev branch).
Is this test passing for you, and is there some patch whic I'm missing which addresses this?
Thanks,
- Ted
generic/299 [16:34:59][ 155.348963] fio (3364) used
greatest stack depth: 5280 bytes left
[ 156.195750] fio (3366) used greatest stack depth: 5184 bytes left
[ 156.243934] fio (3363) used greatest stack depth: 4960 bytes left
^[[A[ 361.330343] INFO: task umount:3426 blocked for more than 120
seconds.
[ 361.331097] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs"
disables this message.
[ 361.331823] f4361d90 00000046 f043a000 c16a0ac0 c16a0ac0 75e421ae
00000028 00000000
[ 361.332620] 00000000 f5ba02a0 c016c753 75e41aee 00000000 f6ad4080
75e41739 00000028
[ 361.333479] 00000001 00000000 f6ad4080 f4361da4 c020882b 00000000
f6ad4080 75e40f23
[ 361.334250] Call Trace:
[ 361.334728] [<c016c753>] ? sched_clock+0x17/0x29
[ 361.335272] [<c020882b>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x1e2/0x20e
[ 361.335781] [<c0f5a34e>] schedule+0xe3/0xf4
[ 361.336182] [<c0f57361>] schedule_timeout+0x28/0x12b
[ 361.336681] [<c023ce71>] ? mark_held_locks+0xc1/0xff
[ 361.337156] [<c0f5d16d>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x5f/0xa9
[ 361.337652] [<c023d156>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x2a7/0x332
[ 361.338188] [<c023d208>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x27/0x37
[ 361.338631] [<c0f5d180>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x72/0xa9
[ 361.339095] [<c0f59fd8>] __wait_for_common+0xfa/0x1a5
[ 361.339534] [<c0f57339>] ? console_conditional_schedule+0x61/0x61
[ 361.340119] [<c020628f>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x377/0x377
[ 361.340561] [<c0f5a25a>] wait_for_completion+0x27/0x38
[ 361.341014] [<c0372aa1>] writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x122/0x13b
[ 361.341502] [<c0f59f38>] ? __wait_for_common+0x5a/0x1a5
[ 361.341963] [<c0372bee>] writeback_inodes_sb+0x3a/0x4c
[ 361.342413] [<c037843a>] __sync_filesystem+0x3f/0xa8
[ 361.342848] [<c037850e>] sync_filesystem+0x6b/0xa8
[ 361.343274] [<c033782b>] generic_shutdown_super+0x56/0x18c
[ 361.343833] [<c0337991>] kill_block_super+0x30/0xd2
[ 361.344418] [<c0337b0f>] deactivate_locked_super+0x3e/0xb9
[ 361.344919] [<c0338bf3>] deactivate_super+0x69/0x7a
[ 361.345350] [<c0360827>] mntput_no_expire+0x23b/0x24e
[ 361.345795] [<c036229c>] sys_umount+0x5f4/0x60c
[ 361.346199] [<c03622d4>] sys_oldumount+0x20/0x30
[ 361.346607] [<c0f5d668>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[ 361.347027] 1 lock held by umount/3426:
[ 361.347361] #0: (&type->s_umount_key#18){++++..}, at: [<c0338bde>]
deactivate_super+0x54/0x7a
[16:40:14] [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see
/root/xfstests/results/generic/299.out.bad)
--- tests/generic/299.out 2013-04-05 21:41:17.000000000 -0400
+++ /root/xfstests/results/generic/299.out.bad 2013-04-12
16:40:14.678565323 -0400
@@ -3,3 +3,6 @@
Run fio with random aio-dio pattern Start fallocate/truncate loop
+./common/rc: line 2055: 3353 Segmentation fault "$@" >>
$seqres.full 2>&1
+failed: '/root/xfstests/bin/fio /tmp/3152-299.fio'
+(see /root/xfstests/results/generic/299.full for details)
...
(Run 'diff -u tests/generic/299.out
/root/xfstests/results/generic/299.out.bad' to see the entire diff)Ran: generic/299
Failures: generic/299
Quoted 49 lines · Theodore Ts'o
Hi Dmitry,
I've been noticing that the relatively new test #299 (which I didn't use in the previous development cycle) is failing for me, both for the current ext4 dev branch, as well as v3.9-rc5-1-g8cde7ad (the origin/branch point from Linus's tree for the dev branch).
Is this test passing for you, and is there some patch whic I'm missing which addresses this?
Thanks,
- Ted
generic/299 [16:34:59][ 155.348963] fio (3364) used
greatest stack depth: 5280 bytes left[ 156.195750] fio (3366) used greatest stack depth: 5184 bytes left [ 156.243934] fio (3363) used greatest stack depth: 4960 bytes left ^[[A[ 361.330343] INFO: task umount:3426 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [ 361.331097] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. [ 361.331823] f4361d90 00000046 f043a000 c16a0ac0 c16a0ac0 75e421ae 00000028 00000000 [ 361.332620] 00000000 f5ba02a0 c016c753 75e41aee 00000000 f6ad4080 75e41739 00000028 [ 361.333479] 00000001 00000000 f6ad4080 f4361da4 c020882b 00000000 f6ad4080 75e40f23 [ 361.334250] Call Trace: [ 361.334728] [<c016c753>] ? sched_clock+0x17/0x29 [ 361.335272] [<c020882b>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x1e2/0x20e [ 361.335781] [<c0f5a34e>] schedule+0xe3/0xf4 [ 361.336182] [<c0f57361>] schedule_timeout+0x28/0x12b [ 361.336681] [<c023ce71>] ? mark_held_locks+0xc1/0xff [ 361.337156] [<c0f5d16d>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x5f/0xa9 [ 361.337652] [<c023d156>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x2a7/0x332 [ 361.338188] [<c023d208>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x27/0x37 [ 361.338631] [<c0f5d180>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x72/0xa9 [ 361.339095] [<c0f59fd8>] __wait_for_common+0xfa/0x1a5 [ 361.339534] [<c0f57339>] ? console_conditional_schedule+0x61/0x61 [ 361.340119] [<c020628f>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x377/0x377 [ 361.340561] [<c0f5a25a>] wait_for_completion+0x27/0x38 [ 361.341014] [<c0372aa1>] writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x122/0x13b [ 361.341502] [<c0f59f38>] ? __wait_for_common+0x5a/0x1a5 [ 361.341963] [<c0372bee>] writeback_inodes_sb+0x3a/0x4c [ 361.342413] [<c037843a>] __sync_filesystem+0x3f/0xa8 [ 361.342848] [<c037850e>] sync_filesystem+0x6b/0xa8 [ 361.343274] [<c033782b>] generic_shutdown_super+0x56/0x18c
Quoted 8 lines
[ 361.343833] [<c0337991>] kill_block_super+0x30/0xd2 [ 361.344418] [<c0337b0f>] deactivate_locked_super+0x3e/0xb9 [ 361.344919] [<c0338bf3>] deactivate_super+0x69/0x7a [ 361.345350] [<c0360827>] mntput_no_expire+0x23b/0x24e [ 361.345795] [<c036229c>] sys_umount+0x5f4/0x60c [ 361.346199] [<c03622d4>] sys_oldumount+0x20/0x30 [ 361.346607] [<c0f5d668>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb [ 361.347027] 1 lock held by umount/3426:
Yes, this types of glitches are possible. Test try to stress fs very hard, sometimes IO becomes too fragmented so 'buffered-aio-verifier' looks like follows:
Level Entries Logical Physical Length Flags
0/ 2 1/ 2 75 - 2140016 33412 2139942 1/ 2 1/302 75 - 2978 98945 2904 2/ 2 1/ 62 75 - 75 2617227 - 2617227 1 2/ 2 2/ 62 79 - 79 246147 - 246147 1 2/ 2 3/ 62 161 - 161 2119435 - 2119435 1 2/ 2 4/ 62 331 - 331 2077134 - 2077134 1 2/ 2 5/ 62 372 - 372 1285910 - 1285910 1 2/ 2 6/ 62 400 - 400 1285938 - 1285938 1 2/ 2 7/ 62 478 - 478 1286016 - 1286016 1 2/ 2 8/ 62 490 - 490 1286028 - 1286028 1 2/ 2 9/ 62 548 - 548 1286086 - 1286086 1 2/ 2 10/ 62 555 - 555 1286093 - 1286093 1 2/ 2 11/ 62 559 - 559 1286097 - 1286097 1 2/ 2 12/ 62 665 - 665 2105779 - 2105779 1 2/ 2 13/ 62 667 - 667 1286401 - 1286401 1 As result blktraces are also looks sub-optimal: 253,3 1 91 2.431844430 6049 Q W 19368784 + 8 [flush-253:3] 253,3 1 92 2.432439483 6049 Q W 19368912 + 8 [flush-253:3] 253,3 1 93 2.433015550 6049 Q W 19369432 + 8 [flush-253:3] 253,3 1 94 2.433562426 6049 Q W 19370184 + 8 [flush-253:3] 253,3 1 95 2.434084419 6049 Q W 19370416 + 8 [flush-253:3] 253,3 1 96 2.434692946 6049 Q W 19372064 + 8 [flush-253:3] 253,3 1 97 2.434976250 6049 Q W 19372208 + 8 [flush-253:3]
IMHO it is not bad idea to have at least one test which force fs to handle very unfriendly workload. In fact, in terms of uncovered bugs, this test appeared to be the most productive for me.
Quoted 10 lines
[ 361.347361] #0: (&type->s_umount_key#18){++++..}, at: [<c0338bde>]
deactivate_super+0x54/0x7a
[16:40:14] [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see
/root/xfstests/results/generic/299.out.bad)
--- tests/generic/299.out 2013-04-05 21:41:17.000000000 -0400
+++ /root/xfstests/results/generic/299.out.bad 2013-04-12
16:40:14.678565323 -0400
@@ -3,3 +3,6 @@
Run fio with random aio-dio patternQuoted 2 lines
Start fallocate/truncate loop
+./common/rc: line 2055: 3353 Segmentation fault "$@" >>
Yes, this is known issue. I probably use recent fio.git/HEAD Jens does a good job on developing fio, but he tend to commit random untested crap to his git. So stability is worse than it should be. I have golden-good commit (aeb32dfccbd05) which works for me, and suggest to use it.
Quoted 12 lines
$seqres.full 2>&1 +failed: '/root/xfstests/bin/fio /tmp/3152-299.fio' +(see /root/xfstests/results/generic/299.full for details) ... (Run 'diff -u tests/generic/299.out /root/xfstests/results/generic/299.out.bad' to see the entire diff)Ran: generic/299
Failures: generic/299
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 9 lines · Dmitry Monakhov
Quoted 4 lines
Run fio with random aio-dio pattern
Start fallocate/truncate loop
+./common/rc: line 2055: 3353 Segmentation fault "$@" >>Yes, this is known issue. I probably use recent fio.git/HEAD Jens does a good job on developing fio, but he tend to commit random untested crap to his git. So stability is worse than it should be. I have golden-good commit (
aeb32dfccbd05) which works for me, and suggest to use it.
Hmm... I just tried recompiling fio to git commit version aeb32dfccbd05, and it's blowing up with a seg fault as well.
One thing about my test environment is that I'm building xfstests and fio on a 32-bit x86 environemnt (because that way I can use an 32-bit kernel, and because when I use a 64-bit kernel I stress test the 64-bit compatibility code paths). Perhaps this has something to do with it?
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to debug this, so at least for now I'm going to exclude generic/299 from my automated test runs.
- Ted
Quoted 11 lines · Theodore Ts'o
Quoted 9 lines · Dmitry Monakhov
Quoted 4 lines
Run fio with random aio-dio pattern
Start fallocate/truncate loop
+./common/rc: line 2055: 3353 Segmentation fault "$@" >>Yes, this is known issue. I probably use recent fio.git/HEAD Jens does a good job on developing fio, but he tend to commit random untested crap to his git. So stability is worse than it should be. I have golden-good commit (
aeb32dfccbd05) which works for me, and suggest to use it.
Quoted 8 lines
Hmm... I just tried recompiling fio to git commit version
aeb32dfccbd05, and it's blowing up with a seg fault as well.One thing about my test environment is that I'm building xfstests and fio on a 32-bit x86 environemnt (because that way I can use an 32-bit kernel, and because when I use a 64-bit kernel I stress test the 64-bit compatibility code paths). Perhaps this has something to do with it?
Yep, reproducible with -m32 compile option
Quoted 3 lines
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to debug this, so at least for now I'm going to exclude generic/299 from my automated test runs.
Actually fix is quite simple, after this everything works fine.
Quoted 1 line
From
473842b2c1181245d3bfd1c5cfc6dbad1b695f79Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: root <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:12:44 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] fio: fix segfault on 32bits platforms
--- stat.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
stat.c +1 -1
@@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ void show_thread_status(struct thread_stat *ts, struct group_run_stats *rs) ts->short_io_u[0 ], ts->short_io_u[1 ], ts->short_io_u[2]);if (ts->continue_on_error) { -log_info (" errors : total=%lu, first_error=%d/<%s>\n" , +log_info (" errors : total=%llu, first_error=%d/<%s>\n" , ts->total_err_count, ts->first_error,strerror (ts->first_error));
Signature · 1 line
1.7.1
Quoted 3 lines
- Ted
Quoted 3 lines · Dmitry Monakhov
Quoted 2 lines
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to debug this, so at least for now I'm going to exclude generic/299 from my automated test runs.
Actually fix is quite simple, after this everything works fine.
Thanks for the patch! I take it fio isn't gcc -Wall clean?
Since otherwise this should have been caught much earlier.... :-(
- Ted
Quoted 6 lines · Theodore Ts'o
Quoted 3 lines · Dmitry Monakhov
Quoted 2 lines
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to debug this, so at least for now I'm going to exclude generic/299 from my automated test runs.
Actually fix is quite simple, after this everything works fine.
Thanks for the patch! I take it fio isn't gcc -Wall clean?
Yes it was, log_xxx() methods was declared w/o _format_ attribute. Nor than less Jens already fixed that here: 4e0a8fa259.