[LTP] [PATCH v4] syscalls/sync_file_range: add partial file sync test-cases
Sumit Garg
sumit.garg@linaro.org
Wed Oct 16 08:23:48 CEST 2019
Hi Caspar,
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 08:24, Caspar Zhang <caspar@casparzhang.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Sumit,
>
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 01:03:19PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > Hi Caspar,
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 18:58, Caspar Zhang <caspar@casparzhang.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Sumit,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 03:43:16PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > - if (written >= FILE_SIZE)
> > > > + if ((written >= tc->exp_sync_size) &&
> > > > + (written <= (tc->exp_sync_size + tc->exp_sync_size/10)))
> > >
> > > May I ask why it is +1/10 of expected sync_size as upper bound here,
> > > since it looks like a magic number to me.
> >
> > It was an outcome of discussion here [1]. The reason being to test
> > that only particular portion of file is written to device for whom
> > sync has been invoked and +1/10 as upper bound to incorporate for any
> > metadata.
>
> I see, thanks for explanation.
>
> >
> > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1051647/
> >
> > >
> > > We encountered test failure in the second case in a debug kernel,
> > > reproducible about once out of 20 times run.
> >
> > Interesting case. Can you share results after applying below patch?
>
> Tested this patch, no TFAIL occured in debug kernel after 200+ times
> run, looks good to me. Thanks! Please add my
>From these results, the reason for the failure that you reported
earlier seems to be writes to the device during "tst_fill_fd()"
operation (they were found negligible/zero with normal kernel). But
it's strange to know that you didn't get any TFAIL after the patch as
I expected "Sync equals write" to fail.
So can you also put following debug print and share logs of your test run?
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sync_file_range/sync_file_range02.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sync_file_range/sync_file_range02.c
@@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ static void verify_sync_file_range(struct testcase *tc)
SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
+ printf("%s: Synced %li, expected %li, pre-sync %li\n",
+ tc->desc, written, tc->exp_sync_size, written_pre);
if ((written >= tc->exp_sync_size) &&
(written <= (tc->exp_sync_size + tc->exp_sync_size/10)))
tst_res(TPASS, "%s", tc->desc);
-Sumit
>
> Reviewed-by: Caspar Zhang <caspar@linux.alibaba.com>
>
> directly if you're going to make a formal patch later.
>
> Thanks,
> Caspar
>
> >
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sync_file_range/sync_file_range02.c
> > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sync_file_range/sync_file_range02.c
> > index eb08143..1bc1a44 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sync_file_range/sync_file_range02.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sync_file_range/sync_file_range02.c
> > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ struct testcase {
> > static void verify_sync_file_range(struct testcase *tc)
> > {
> > int fd;
> > - unsigned long written;
> > + unsigned long written, written_pre;
> >
> > fd = SAFE_OPEN(tc->fname, O_RDWR|O_CREAT, MODE);
> >
> > @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ static void verify_sync_file_range(struct testcase *tc)
> >
> > tst_fill_fd(fd, 0, TST_MB, tc->write_size_mb);
> >
> > + written_pre = tst_dev_bytes_written(tst_device->dev);
> > +
> > TEST(sync_file_range(fd, tc->sync_off, tc->sync_size,
> > SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE |
> > SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE |
> > @@ -70,8 +72,8 @@ static void verify_sync_file_range(struct testcase *tc)
> > (written <= (tc->exp_sync_size + tc->exp_sync_size/10)))
> > tst_res(TPASS, "%s", tc->desc);
> > else
> > - tst_res(TFAIL, "%s: Synced %li, expected %li", tc->desc,
> > - written, tc->exp_sync_size);
> > + tst_res(TFAIL, "%s: Synced %li, expected %li, pre-sync %li",
> > + tc->desc, written, tc->exp_sync_size, written_pre);
> > }
> >
> > static struct testcase testcases[] = {
> >
> > -Sumit
> >
> > >
> > > The reason is unclear yet, however my guess is that more pages could be
> > > written to disk in a debug kernel than a release kernel.
> > >
> > > My codes and config as below:
> > >
> > > tree: https://github.com/alibaba/cloud-kernel :: ck-4.19.67 branch;
> > > config: https://github.com/alibaba/cloud-kernel/blob/master/config-4.19.y-x86_64-debug
> > >
> > > If you like you can build a test kernel on a KVM guest and try to
> > > reproduce, or just run a RHEL8 kernel I guess (@Li Wang, you can have a
> > > try on RHEL8 debug kernel if possible).
> > >
> > > a sample output:
> > >
> > > tst_device.c:87: INFO: Found free device 0 '/dev/loop0'
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:60: INFO: Kernel supports ext2
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:44: INFO: mkfs.ext2 does exist
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:60: INFO: Kernel supports ext3
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:44: INFO: mkfs.ext3 does exist
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:60: INFO: Kernel supports ext4
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:44: INFO: mkfs.ext4 does exist
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:60: INFO: Kernel supports xfs
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:44: INFO: mkfs.xfs does exist
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:60: INFO: Kernel supports btrfs
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:44: INFO: mkfs.btrfs does exist
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:60: INFO: Kernel supports vfat
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:44: INFO: mkfs.vfat does exist
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:83: INFO: Filesystem exfat is not supported
> > > tst_supported_fs_types.c:83: INFO: Filesystem ntfs is not supported
> > > tst_test.c:1179: INFO: Testing on ext2
> > > tst_mkfs.c:90: INFO: Formatting /dev/loop0 with ext2 opts='' extra opts=''
> > > mke2fs 1.43.5 (04-Aug-2017)
> > > tst_test.c:1118: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync equals write
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync inside of write
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync overlaps with write
> > > tst_test.c:1179: INFO: Testing on ext3
> > > tst_mkfs.c:90: INFO: Formatting /dev/loop0 with ext3 opts='' extra opts=''
> > > mke2fs 1.43.5 (04-Aug-2017)
> > > tst_test.c:1118: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync equals write
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync inside of write
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync overlaps with write
> > > tst_test.c:1179: INFO: Testing on ext4
> > > tst_mkfs.c:90: INFO: Formatting /dev/loop0 with ext4 opts='' extra opts=''
> > > mke2fs 1.43.5 (04-Aug-2017)
> > > tst_test.c:1118: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync equals write
> > > sync_file_range02.c:74: FAIL: Sync inside of write: Synced 19658752, expected 16777216
> > > ^^^^
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync overlaps with write
> > > tst_test.c:1179: INFO: Testing on xfs
> > > tst_mkfs.c:90: INFO: Formatting /dev/loop0 with xfs opts='' extra opts=''
> > > tst_test.c:1118: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync equals write
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync inside of write
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync overlaps with write
> > > tst_test.c:1179: INFO: Testing on btrfs
> > > tst_mkfs.c:90: INFO: Formatting /dev/loop0 with btrfs opts='' extra opts=''
> > > tst_test.c:1118: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync equals write
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync inside of write
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync overlaps with write
> > > tst_test.c:1179: INFO: Testing on vfat
> > > tst_mkfs.c:90: INFO: Formatting /dev/loop0 with vfat opts='' extra opts=''
> > > tst_test.c:1118: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> > > sync_file_range02.c:111: INFO: Pre-filling file
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync equals write
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync inside of write
> > > sync_file_range02.c:71: PASS: Sync overlaps with write
> > >
> > > Summary:
> > > passed 17
> > > failed 1
> > > skipped 0
> > > warnings 0
> > >
> > > Any thoughts would be appreicated.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Caspar
> > >
> > >
> > > > tst_res(TPASS, "Test file range synced to device");
> > > > else
> > > > - tst_res(TFAIL, "Synced %li, expected %i", written, FILE_SIZE);
> > > > + tst_res(TFAIL, "Synced %li, expected %li", written,
> > > > + tc->exp_sync_size);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct testcase testcases[] = {
> > > > + { FNAME1, 0, FILE_SZ, FILE_SZ, 0, FILE_SZ_MB },
> > > > + { FNAME2, FILE_SZ/4, FILE_SZ/2, FILE_SZ/2, 0, FILE_SZ_MB },
> > > > + { FNAME3, FILE_SZ/4, FILE_SZ/2, FILE_SZ/4, FILE_SZ/2, FILE_SZ_MB/4 },
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static void run(unsigned int i)
> > > > +{
> > > > + verify_sync_file_range(&testcases[i]);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static void setup(void)
> > > > {
> > > > if (!check_sync_file_range())
> > > > tst_brk(TCONF, "sync_file_range() not supported");
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!strcmp(tst_device->fs_type, "vfat")) {
> > > > + tst_res(TINFO, "Pre-filling file");
> > > > + tst_fill_file(FNAME3, 0, TST_MB, FILE_SZ_MB);
> > > > + sync();
> > > > + }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static struct tst_test test = {
> > > > + .tcnt = ARRAY_SIZE(testcases),
> > > > .needs_root = 1,
> > > > .mount_device = 1,
> > > > .all_filesystems = 1,
> > > > .mntpoint = MNTPOINT,
> > > > .setup = setup,
> > > > - .test_all = verify_sync_file_range,
> > > > + .test = run,
> > > > };
> > > > --
> > > > 2.7.4
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Caspar
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Caspar
More information about the ltp
mailing list