From: Roman Penyaev Subject: Re: Refreshed rootfs.img for kvm-xfstests Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:07:49 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20170109231450.objek3yirxbtbgzn@thunk.org> <20170110033845.qkjg6qzfjxy5i54k@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Eric Biggers To: "Theodore Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]:36141 "EHLO mail-io0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933522AbdAJPIQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:08:16 -0500 Received: by mail-io0-f171.google.com with SMTP id j13so52036574iod.3 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:08:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Roman Penyaev wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 06:14:50PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >>> There is an updated rootfs.img file available at: >>> >>> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/kvm-xfstests >> >> ... and here are the latest test results using gce-xfstests on the >> ext4.git's dev branch (which includes Roman's fixes). I've annotated >> the test failures report here and attached a compressed copy of the >> runtests.log file: >> >> CMDLINE: full >> FSTESTIMG: gce-xfstests/xfstests-201701091217 >> FSTESTVER: e2fsprogs v1.43.3-30-g8df85fb (Sun, 4 Sep 2016 21:32:35 -0400) >> FSTESTVER: fio fio-2.16 (Mon, 19 Dec 2016 23:12:56 -0700) >> FSTESTVER: quota 2b37958 (Tue, 9 Aug 2016 19:17:56 +0200) >> FSTESTVER: xfsprogs v4.9.0-1-g07d66eb (Sat, 7 Jan 2017 23:27:26 -0500) >> FSTESTVER: xfstests-bld 39124a6 (Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:09:14 -0500) >> FSTESTVER: xfstests linux-v3.8-1306-gbeffdf1 (Sun, 8 Jan 2017 20:30:22 -0500) >> FSTESTVER: kernel 4.10.0-rc3-ext4-00014-g2b3864b32403 #195 SMP Mon Jan 9 01:32:06 EST 2017 x86_64 >> FSTESTCFG: "all" >> FSTESTSET: "-g auto" >> FSTESTEXC: "" >> FSTESTOPT: "aex" >> MNTOPTS: "" >> CPUS: "2" >> MEM: "7477.96" >> MEM: 7680 MB (Max capacity) >> BEGIN TEST 4k: Ext4 4k block Mon Jan 9 12:26:16 EST 2017 >> Passed all 245 tests >> BEGIN TEST 1k: Ext4 1k block Mon Jan 9 13:16:48 EST 2017 >> Failures: generic/018 generic/270 generic/273 >> generic/018 -- defrag test failure --- ignore >> generic/270 -- known lockdep problem in quota code >> generic/273 -- we aren't reserving enough blocks on a 2GB 1k file system, >> so ENOSPC block reservation test is failing. >> BEGIN TEST ext3: Ext4 4k block emulating ext3 Mon Jan 9 14:13:51 EST 2017 >> Failures: generic/382 >> generic/382 -- quota test which doesn't take indirect blocks into account. >> BEGIN TEST encrypt: Ext4 encryption Mon Jan 9 14:57:29 EST 2017 >> Failures: ext4/022 generic/382 >> ext4/022 -- ENOSPC test involving encryption and xattr >> generic/382 -- quota test which should be suppresed with encryption >> BEGIN TEST nojournal: Ext4 4k block w/ no journal Mon Jan 9 15:22:05 EST 2017 >> Failures: ext4/301 >> ext4/301 -- defrag failure with no journal? >> BEGIN TEST ext3conv: Ext4 4k block w/nodelalloc and no flex_bg Mon Jan 9 16:07:55 EST 2017 >> Failures: generic/347 >> generic/347 --- file system got corrupted?!? >> BEGIN TEST adv: Ext4 advanced features (inline_data, metadata_csum, 64bit) Mon Jan 9 16:53:22 EST 2017 >> Failures: generic/396 generic/399 >> generic/396 --- fscrypt releated: file system got corrupted?!? >> generic/399 --- fscrypt releated: file system never filled up?!? >> BEGIN TEST dioread_nolock: Ext4 4k block w/dioread_nolock Mon Jan 9 17:39:38 EST 2017 >> Passed all 245 tests >> BEGIN TEST data_journal: Ext4 4k block w/data=journal Mon Jan 9 18:25:55 EST 2017 >> Failures: generic/347 >> generic/347 -- file system got corruptd?!? >> BEGIN TEST bigalloc: Ext4 4k block w/bigalloc Mon Jan 9 19:35:00 EST 2017 >> Failures: ext4/004 generic/204 generic/219 generic/235 generic/273 generic/399 >> ext4/004 --- dump restore failure (with bigalloc --- not surprising) >> generic/204 --- ENOSPC during test >> generic/219 --- too many blocks used (quota accounting) >> generic/235 --- clusters vs blocks accounting in quota code >> generic/273 --- not reserving enough space (porter not complete) >> generic/399 --- fscrypt releated: file system corrupted?!? >> BEGIN TEST bigalloc_1k: Ext4 1k block w/bigalloc Mon Jan 9 20:17:46 EST 2017 >> Failures: ext4/004 generic/204 generic/235 generic/273nnn >> ext4/004 --- dump restore failure (with bigalloc --- not surprising) >> generic/204 --- ENOSPC during test >> generic/235 --- clusters vs blocks accounting in quota code >> generic/273 --- not reserving enough space (porter not complete)?!? >> >> Some of these are test bugs that we should fix or suppress. Others, >> such as the new encryption tests causing corrupted file systems in the >> more exotic file system configurations, are definitely bugs that we >> need to fix. >> > > I retested the following configurations on 69973b830859 ("Linux 4.9"): > > ./kvm-xfstests.sh -c nojournal ext4/301 > ./kvm-xfstests.sh -c ext3conv generic/347 > ./kvm-xfstests.sh -c adv generic/396 generic/399 > ./kvm-xfstests.sh -c data_journal generic/347 > ./kvm-xfstests.sh -c bigalloc generic/399 > ./kvm-xfstests.sh -c bigalloc_1k generic/273 > > all of the tests from list have failed. I executed the list above on these kernels: c8d2bc9bc39e ("Linux 4.8") 523d939ef98f ("Linux 4.7") 2dcd0af568b0 ("Linux 4.6") b562e44f507e ("Linux 4.5") and the picture stays the same: tests continue to fail. (once I saw '-c data_journal generic/347' on 4.6 has passed, but I failed to repeat this success). Theodore, do you have successful reference run for these configurations? Because, I am pretty much confused: either I do something completely wrong (seems checking "FSTESTVER: kernel" line should be enough to be sure, that tests are executed on desired kernel version) or those tests were broken long time ago. -- Roman > > This is not very much helpful, but at least that can be a starting > point for bisecting. > > When there was a successful xfstests run at least for some of > the configurations? Would be nice to have a "good" reference. > > -- > Roman