Received: by 2002:a25:8b12:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i18csp1160103ybl; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:29:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqycMZ3LtGRCfARnP9oMVPphdXfybE/5sFXqdummp2LiPVrXjjf8gIr9hOa0Zwruh6jTjXLT X-Received: by 2002:a63:494d:: with SMTP id y13mr4497504pgk.109.1567013354957; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:29:14 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1567013354; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=1EVyNs6nuUVRpWMZG7eII9+4Sdro5oTzBOEjZGT19pRS6xJUf9HifYf59aqEayeLZn vpNh8F4RMy5U7t/cnJPe9TyIsD4husI/ccW6VMQLvYwVm88f919eQ7IknC3SEf+2RWSj VfrgY7Ey0wjeIEAFU6+4cBPADD+0LuRJIvSoTVnbmjDM8oSAbur7biB4YqEn/WvtgKH2 iwPeDB/fJ3EnfBuRXVzx1VkxXAH9gIsIgI2Pntw1QXs5/w4hXQ4nMIL9HR2wyUswyPWx xbmTXgAz7JJI2UiJCezYhvyYgzXZha2PvptcDm8RThmz1qYVyV2Ibjel9cGMTHVyoJfS kYuQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:from:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:date; bh=RVScOfQGj2rPEeZIb21aDNcENRB2QwVjdUc0Y94aecs=; b=bZskUUl6Zpn4GT4H0IlDSJiWj4QU71ilTg5/mCIGdFzIDGVmMOVxc9cUn4y62H//IY ZeiPa6WTae3RrFBJ3WzxD+vn8JzzAIBuaBmXl+8IWI+sfVVz27OUKn2m7O305LngCV+m BKxNisJMqR8Olf4D12qWyASdrJO46dMmY98vIEetWeTslC9kv0hMNhmDWELNkxYaXv7O OdNTqHvN8moy9H5fqu3r0efS01CSXore2wip9UfLWjVBhNo08NgQwZCqW8rN8UZy6g+y VE7/4HGJVr0t0/D9fvr3SkwVlIqbpsKJzWKTuyFcsjKo00wHnHh260MX69RexMTFfJDV MyyA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m4si2562751pgv.57.2019.08.28.10.28.51; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726520AbfH1R2u (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:28:50 -0400 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:49336 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726315AbfH1R2u (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:28:50 -0400 Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id 9A2F7BD8; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:28:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:28:49 -0400 To: Su Yanjun Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, cuiyue-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Subject: Re: NFS issues about aio and dio test Message-ID: <20190828172849.GA29148@fieldses.org> References: <975395cc-62f2-843f-cc71-82339b2869cd@cn.fujitsu.com> <65ea4ea2-548f-1546-059a-af901bba2e87@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <65ea4ea2-548f-1546-059a-af901bba2e87@cn.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) From: bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields) Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 08:37:41AM +0800, Su Yanjun wrote: > Any ping? > > 在 2019/8/6 14:08, Su Yanjun 写道: > >Hi, > > > >When I tested xfstests generic/465 with NFS, there was something > >unexpected. > > > >When memory of NFS server was 10G, test passed. > >But when memory of NFS server was 4G, test failed. > > > >Fail message was as below. > >    non-aio dio test > >    encounter an error: block 4 offset 0, content 62 > >    aio-dio test > >    encounter an error: block 1 offset 0, content 62 > > > >All of the NFS versions(v3 v4.0 v4.1 v4.2) have  this problem. > >Maybe something is wrong about NFS's I/O operation. > > > >Thanks in advance. Off the top of my head it doesn't look familiar. What kernel version are you running on client and server? Did this test previously pass on an older kernel (so, was this a recent regression?) Have you looked at generic/465 to see what exactly is happening here? --b.