Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:9848:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x8csp835252pxf; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:43:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxFC5dM/z0DcG9F9988VHdzVPRsR6F6yHjNImal+8y6qnxka6sHc8hKH2ohl0akXNkxBgGv X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1b42:: with SMTP id p2mr245837ejg.236.1616096624307; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:43:44 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1616096624; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=HylzUSohIVxfRzS5bHimTCq05MgkJYiLw3gs+ZFvNXQvO7qdKCnjm9hT6xHiwCZgHr n5EbYbHwtlKHaek+egiCRQ4kXIJozdo5ZDYOI8XUhcMAgRtiepsXqYMEXyf3qYoBM7Mn o5o6/b5wmu2dMFgdejJooSPEt/WZXj6/Hu0cE4BcEqqWc+K8Ijm3gbTTFmswuuXyOXG7 N16wG3JkR/6XUBqyQVqbYnwKaJtvoyznjhJCOcJ81PYU9XsNby5ipFpiGX1myuOie4S7 1PnCgrQaUHrbH3dHATJf9jeEeWtSYopNuo+p1Siu3cH+EpfqoVrequd67uqRqVx0Ev2j H1rQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=qV20Ow5pEHorNxG39BlS6R15lAWlc5pHyeoYV2o0890=; b=UoI6XZM6rBpmJafmq8Ho+/1vkO3fiIUe2Vsd+8y0efTRu1fU38aLMdaVT3tQH9I5rM +hR/mF3mDczya4jTqfMztctMJ6TuIq3iARgFwZm7ziXclakmzsBmV5vv/Qe2LDr5GRqA edb9hRnRBhy7u2j2t6m4vOKTgGBEmNHFQaG1cMRZ6G91vzyGgb61SG6r3piE5R74kl7/ kySUZrffzcWoLWksIR0H6KNTuIezZ/hvbeseuLQZYZUTQ71lXh9hF8tITET35cdpeNZW xsiZ5ceSoP3e5nxAfM7IS88JR4pKYT+dJ0gMNO8/ScF19ASTyTJRxSamhEUcOQ+H6fy0 vb3w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g4si2053804ejx.700.2021.03.18.12.43.18; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233056AbhCRTmW (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:42:22 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:34835 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233162AbhCRTmR (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:42:17 -0400 Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-72-74-133-215.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [72.74.133.215]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 12IJfx16022967 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:41:59 -0400 Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id DB89715C39CA; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:41:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:41:58 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Eric Whitney Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org Subject: Re: generic/418 regression seen on 5.12-rc3 Message-ID: References: <20210318181613.GA13891@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210318181613.GA13891@localhost.localdomain> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:16:13PM -0400, Eric Whitney wrote: > As mentioned in today's ext4 concall, I've seen generic/418 fail from time to > time when run on 5.12-rc3 and 5.12-rc1 kernels. This first occurred when > running the 1k test case using kvm-xfstests. I was then able to bisect the > failure to a patch landed in the -rc1 merge window: > > (bd8a1f3655a7) mm/filemap: support readpage splitting a page > > Typical test output resulting from a failure looks like: > > QA output created by 418 > +cmpbuf: offset 0: Expected: 0x1, got 0x0 > +[6:0] FAIL - comparison failed, offset 3072 > +diotest -w -b 512 -n 8 -i 4 failed at loop 0 > Silence is golden > ... > > I've also been able to reproduce the failure on -rc3 in the 4k test case as > well. The failure frequency there was 10 out of 100 runs. It was anywhere > from 2 to 8 failures out of 100 runs in the 1k case. FWIW, testing on a kernel which is -rc2 based (ext4.git's tip) I wasn't able to see a failure using gce-xfstests using the ext4/4k, ext4/1k, and xfs/1k test scenarios. This may be because of the I/O timing for the persistent disk block device in GCE, or differences in the number of CPU's or amount of memory available --- or in the kernel configuration that was used to build it. I'm currently retrying with -rc3, with and without the kernel debug configs, to see if that makes any difference... - Ted