Received: by 2002:a25:d7c1:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o184csp2032554ybg; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 03:53:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzktKavtVaoH8kJGPB9SOn9HfwEdncQgSPk5NaEbB9N8zdAS+dS+dRnSMsXoeQCY8v5JUmK X-Received: by 2002:a50:f744:: with SMTP id j4mr42511069edn.73.1571914382493; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 03:53:02 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1571914382; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=FI3dUTJ2kONl34va4C8lk2mB8ptfTRxyI9SNDfnSIFivXKiC806SOpWxg126k9cVlr HhI5+UEYj3G1nXPAu++MkuCfMUxO0qlqzw3UF8UtV+Hd6MZB/IWer1vShkRTABQywhHc SmNeikO5VGvl9fftYPNHSrH6doJ5V+XNHoI723MDsv+IfuejLUDzHToAGiMIuhJxFFTI LfnbzD1wq+zKvyp9yZT0ypQBLA46pC6tub8t6os8L/eBUxH2hiNBRV/epAHpMV/L3klk Rk0UcR0Z8MtZxU0WOoDKXNATmz5F7zGlz6tSu7sEHaCwYcclPJ3UV06LJtlPu+bdZl5q RqNw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=ZzeFVzZlOcdn9QVFCpCYvgJqapyvbpyVlRr+/5f70Sw=; b=u45Il+qRctKd6PsqtpIU9IiXJz+s6VUubQAJ5HFGxfbIt4FpWucIf7uipam1qymEt8 /2stbw0OHy3i148udzZl9aFDS0c5Gzju77JljyqSUd5fuSeRTUOS5X7Jc1Xnbywikvfo t1655xtG6oAaATUEI7ZYTo439DA+NG0Gf3iu6a5F/bJ9ZZc5fREMv5GYMixp947yETMw zAFSO1uGPmctCOFUrSDAJWIxsk8N+NOLv+IV2HwDoK43Wupo0FEHFoif8WMZDSmE9CRE r+touPfqcb5FHTgb3LNwCxCGhBWX2LBkKndnHxkNPJ42JQY5ugUPtUYa/55p4LucHwgf tDmw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-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 b26si14134169eju.87.2019.10.24.03.52.37; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 03:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-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-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389394AbfJWX0Y (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:26:24 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:40971 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731522AbfJWX0Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:26:24 -0400 Received: from callcc.thunk.org (guestnat-104-133-0-98.corp.google.com [104.133.0.98] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x9NNQEfO002547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:26:15 -0400 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 91B42420456; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:26:14 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" To: Ritesh Harjani Cc: jack@suse.cz, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Ext4: Add support for blocksize < pagesize for dioread_nolock Message-ID: <20191023232614.GB1124@mit.edu> References: <20191016073711.4141-1-riteshh@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191016073711.4141-1-riteshh@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Hi Ritesh, I haven't had a chance to dig into the test failures yet, but FYI.... when I ran the auto test group in xfstests, I saw failures for generic/219, generic 273, and generic/476 --- these errors did not show up when running using a standard 4k blocksize on x86, and they also did not show up when running dioread_nolock using a 4k blocksize. So I tried running "generic/219 generic/273 generic/476" 30 times, using in a Google Compute Engine VM, using gce-xfstests, and while I wasn't able to get generic/219 to fail when run in isolation, generic/273 seems to fail quite reliably, and generic/476 about a third of the time. How much testing have you done with these patches? Thanks, - Ted TESTRUNID: tytso-20191023144956 KERNEL: kernel 5.4.0-rc3-xfstests-00005-g39b811602906 #1244 SMP Wed Oct 23 11:30:25 EDT 2019 x86_64 CMDLINE: --update-files -C 30 -c dioread_nolock_1k generic/219 generic/273 generic/476 CPUS: 2 MEM: 7680 ext4/dioread_nolock_1k: 90 tests, 42 failures, 10434 seconds Failures: generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/273 generic/476 generic/273 generic/476 Totals: 90 tests, 0 skipped, 42 failures, 0 errors, 10434s