[LTP] [PATCH 1/1] cgroup/cgroup_regression_test: Fix umount failure
Leo Liang
ycliang@andestech.com
Mon Jul 12 09:28:40 CEST 2021
Hi Yang,
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 05:45:32AM +0000, xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Hi Leo
> >
> >> IMO, Even we call sync, this umount may fail because sync ensures
> >> nothing. Why not use tst_umount?
> >
> > Hi Yang,
> >
> > I think this might be a timing issue and a little delay could fix this problem. (e.g. 'sleep 1')
> > Using 'sync' here IMHO would be more descriptive and has a semantic meaning.
> Yes, it is a timing issue.
> I also met a similar problem because of sync to lead EBUSY error in
> xfstests log time ago.
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?id=b536de2a042484bb241cca120ce55c974309513a
>
> So, I don't think using sync is a good idea because sync will make
> metadata into disk but no ensure it. So if we have other io work, then
> sync may push other's metadata into disk firstly instead of here's data.
>
> Since we have tst_umount api to avoid EBUSY error, why not to use it in
> here to avoid your problem?
> >
> > Speaking of tst_umount, do you mean to convert this test to C code ?
> No, we also have shell api for tst_umount.
Thanks for the suggestion.
I've tested the cgroup_regression_test with the tst_umount api
and it works fine!
I will convert "add sync" patch to this!
Thanks again.
> >
> >> Best Regards
> >> Yang Xu
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Leo
Best regards,
Leo
More information about the ltp
mailing list