Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210912123429.GA25450@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> <YT8HqsXsHFeMdDxS@yuki>
In-Reply-To: <YT8HqsXsHFeMdDxS@yuki>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:59:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOssrKdQ0XWqk1nbpRjRAO7E+t5+7qzXm1mkJPObkzsQrbAoKg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [mm/page] ab19939a6a: ltp.msync04.fail
To:     Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
Cc:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        Chi Wu <wuchi.zero@gmail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        lkp@intel.com, lkp@lists.01.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        ltp@lists.linux.it
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:19 AM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi!
> > FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-9):
> >
> > commit: ab19939a6a5010cba4e9cb04dd8bee03c72edcbd ("mm/page-writeback: Fix performance when BDI's share of ratio is 0.")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> >
> >
> > in testcase: ltp
> > version: ltp-x86_64-14c1f76-1_20210907
> > with following parameters:
> >
> >       disk: 1HDD
> >       fs: xfs
> >       test: syscalls-03
> >       ucode: 0xe2
> >
> > test-description: The LTP testsuite contains a collection of tools for testing the Linux kernel and related features.
> > test-url: http://linux-test-project.github.io/
>
> The msync04 test formats a device with a diffrent filesystems, for each
> filesystem it maps a file, writes to the mapped page and the checks a
> dirty bit in /proc/kpageflags before and after msync() on that page.
>
> This seems to be broken after this patch for ntfs over FUSE and it looks
> like the page does not have a dirty bit set right after it has been
> written to.
>
> Also I guess that we should increase the number of the pages we dirty or
> attempt to retry since a single page may be flushed to the storage if we
> are unlucky and the process is preempted between the write and the
> initial check for the dirty bit.

Weird.  Does this reproduce 100% of the time?  If not, then I guess
it's a race and we can ignore this report (or improve the test to make
it less likely to trigger).

Thanks,
Miklos