Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: generic/456 regression on 5.7-rc1, 1k test case
To:     Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200413201211.wbcotcr6rg523wzs@localhost.localdomain>
From:   Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:19:05 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200413201211.wbcotcr6rg523wzs@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <20200414034906.5CB8211C054@d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Eric,

On 4/14/20 8:22 AM, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Hello Eric,
> 
> On 4/14/20 1:42 AM, Eric Whitney wrote:
>> I'm seeing consistent failures for generic/456 while running 
>> kvm-xfstests' 1k
>> test case on 5.7-rc1.  This is with an x86-64 test appliance root file 
>> system
>> image dated 23 March 2020.
>>
>> The test fails when e2fsck reports "inconsistent fs: inode 12, i_size is
>> 147456, should be 163840".
>>
>> Bisecting 5.7-rc1 identified the following patch as the cause:
>> ext4: don't set dioread_nolock by default for blocksize < pagesize
>> (626b035b816b).  Reverting the patch in 5.7-rc1 reliably eliminates 
>> the test
>> failure.
>>
> 
> Since you could reliably reproduce it. Could you please try with this
> patch and see if this fixes it for you?
> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-ext4/patch/20200331105016.8674-1-jack@suse.cz/ 


Ok, so after updating the xfstests to latest, I could reliably reproduce
generic/456 failing on x86 with 1K blocksize on my setup too.
Although, with my limited testing, I couldn't see this issue on Power 
(where blocksize == 4K and PAGESIZE=64K).

But either ways, after applying above patch the tests always passes for
me (tested on x86). So this should indeed fix your reported problem.
Saw an email too that Ted has now picked up this patch.


-ritesh