Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:58:06 -0700
From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
To: James Wang <jnwang@suse.com>
Cc: osandov@fb.com, hch@infradead.org, axboe@fb.com, hare@suse.com,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mgorman@suse.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests] loop/002: Regression testing for loop device
 flush
Message-ID: <20170626185806.GA6710@vader.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20170608122812.24225-1-jnwang@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170608122812.24225-1-jnwang@suse.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3652
Lines: 136

Hi, James, thanks for sending this in. Sorry for the delay, I've been
out of the office for a couple of weeks. A few comments below.

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:28:12PM +0800, James Wang wrote:
> Add a regression testing for loop device. when an unbound device
> be close that take too long time. kernel will consume serveral orders
> of magnitude more wall time than it does for a mounted device.
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Wang <jnwang@suse.com>
> ---
>  tests/loop/002     | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  tests/loop/002.out |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 79 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/loop/002 b/tests/loop/002
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000..fd607d1
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/loop/002
> @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
> +#!/bin/bash
> +#
> +# Test if close()ing a unbound loop device is too slow
> +# Copyright (C) 2017 James Wang
> +#
> +# This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> +# the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
> +# (at your option) any later version.
> +#
> +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> +# GNU General Public License for more details.
> +#
> +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> +# along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> +
> +DESCRIPTION="Test if close()ing a unbound loop device is too slow"
> +
> +QUICK=1
> +
> +function run_test() {

For consistency with everything else in blktests, please don't use
"function" when defining a function.

> +	TIMEFORMAT='%5R'
> +	time {
> +		for f in `ls /dev/loop[0-9]*|sort`; do dd if=$f of=/dev/null  bs=512 count=1 >/dev/null 2>&1; done
> +	}
> +}
> +function clean_up() {
> +	if lsmod | grep loop >/dev/null 2>&1; then
> +		umount /dev/loop* >/dev/null 2>&1
> +		losetup -D
> +		sleep 5
> +		
> +		if ! rmmod loop;then
> +			return 2;
> +		fi
> +	fi
> +}
> +
> +function prepare() {
> +	modprobe loop max_loop=64

If loop is already loaded, this won't work, right?

> +	dd if=/dev/zero of=${TMPDIR}/disk bs=512 count=200K >/dev/null 2>&1
> +	for((i=0;i<4;i++))
> +	do
> +	        losetup -f ${TMPDIR}/disk;
> +	done
> +	mkfs.ext4 -F /dev/loop0 >/dev/null 2>&1

Hm, so if I happened to have something I care about on /dev/loop0,
running blktests will destroy it? This is a no-go.

> +	for((i=0;i<4;i++))
> +	do
> +	        mkdir -p t$i;
> +	        mount /dev/loop$i t$i;
> +	done
> +
> +}
> +
> +
> +test() {
> +	echo "Running ${TEST_NAME}"
> +
> +	prepare
> +	SECONDS=0
> +	run_test >/dev/null 2>&1
> +	DURATION=${SECONDS}

Nifty, I didn't know about $SECONDS.

> +
> +	clean_up
> +	if ! clean_up; then
> +		echo "Test complete"
> +		return 2
> +	fi
> +	echo "Test complete"
> +	if [[ "${DURATION}" -gt 1 ]]; then
> +		return 1
> +	else
> +		return 0
> +	fi

I'd really like a meaningful output if this test fails, so something
like this instead of the if/else

if [[ "${DURATION}" -gt 1 ]]; then
	echo "test took too long ($DURATION seconds)"
fi

> +}
> diff --git a/tests/loop/002.out b/tests/loop/002.out
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..5c34a37
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/loop/002.out
> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> +Running loop/002
> +Test complete
> -- 
> 2.12.3
> 

Overall, is there an easier way to test this than setting up 64 loop
devices at modprobe time? E.g., can you losetup -f and run it on a
single loop device many times to measure the same issue?

Thanks again!