Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
READ_PLUS.
I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
READ_PLUS.
--b.
generic/263 109s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad)
--- tests/generic/263.out 2019-12-20 17:34:10.493343575 -0500
+++ /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad 2020-10-27 13:43:41.968835322 -0400
@@ -1,3 +1,2018 @@
QA output created by 263
fsx -N 10000 -o 8192 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z
-fsx -N 10000 -o 128000 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z
+Seed set to 1
+main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, disabling!
+main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE, disabling!
+main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE, disabling!
...
(Run 'diff -u /root/xfstests-dev/tests/generic/263.out /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
Ran: generic/263
Failures: generic/263
Failed 1 of 1 tests
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
> READ_PLUS.
>
> I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
> support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
> the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
> READ_PLUS.
I just ran xfstests, and I'm seeing this too. The test passes using
basic READ on v4.2, so there might be something farther down the log
that diff is cutting off. I'll see if anything sticks out to me this
week.
Anna
>
> --b.
>
> generic/263 109s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad)
> --- tests/generic/263.out 2019-12-20 17:34:10.493343575 -0500
> +++ /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad 2020-10-27 13:43:41.968835322 -0400
> @@ -1,3 +1,2018 @@
> QA output created by 263
> fsx -N 10000 -o 8192 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z
> -fsx -N 10000 -o 128000 -l 500000 -r PSIZE -t BSIZE -w BSIZE -Z
> +Seed set to 1
> +main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, disabling!
> +main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE, disabling!
> +main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE, disabling!
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u /root/xfstests-dev/tests/generic/263.out /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/263.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
> Ran: generic/263
> Failures: generic/263
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:59:56PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
> > READ_PLUS.
> >
> > I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
> > support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
> > the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
> > READ_PLUS.
>
> I just ran xfstests, and I'm seeing this too. The test passes using
> basic READ on v4.2, so there might be something farther down the log
> that diff is cutting off. I'll see if anything sticks out to me this
> week.
Thanks!
Also, wireshark doesn't seem to be parsing READ_PLUS replies correctly.
Cc'ing Jorge since he seems to have been the last to touch that code.
--b.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 04:05:07PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:59:56PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
> > > READ_PLUS.
> > >
> > > I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
> > > support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
> > > the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
> > > READ_PLUS.
> >
> > I just ran xfstests, and I'm seeing this too. The test passes using
> > basic READ on v4.2, so there might be something farther down the log
> > that diff is cutting off. I'll see if anything sticks out to me this
> > week.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Also, wireshark doesn't seem to be parsing READ_PLUS replies correctly.
> Cc'ing Jorge since he seems to have been the last to touch that code.
Oops, ignore me!
I was actually just running the wrong version of wireshark, with a
version built with Jorge's patch it's fine.
--b.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:59:56PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
> > READ_PLUS.
> >
> > I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
> > support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
> > the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
> > READ_PLUS.
>
> I just ran xfstests, and I'm seeing this too. The test passes using
> basic READ on v4.2, so there might be something farther down the log
> that diff is cutting off. I'll see if anything sticks out to me this
> week.
I think 091 is failing from the same cause, by the way. I haven't
investigated any more though.
--b.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:52 PM J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 03:59:56PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Generic/263 is failing whenever client and server both supports
> > > READ_PLUS.
> > >
> > > I'm not even sure the failure is wrong. The NFS FALLOC operation doesn't
> > > support those other other fallocate modes, are they implemented elsewhere in
> > > the kernel or libc somehow? Anyway, odd that it would have anything to do with
> > > READ_PLUS.
> >
> > I just ran xfstests, and I'm seeing this too. The test passes using
> > basic READ on v4.2, so there might be something farther down the log
> > that diff is cutting off. I'll see if anything sticks out to me this
> > week.
>
> I think 091 is failing from the same cause, by the way. I haven't
> investigated any more though.
These tests do a combination of directio reads and buffered reads. I
don't yet understand why this is a problem with READ_PLUS but works
fine for READ
Anna
>
> --b.