| Message ID | CAJfpegs=RenwFojwAze_y7WF3hwiNu-+5qDw_wyT=o0M063HkQ@mail.gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 04:50:02PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > While testing overlayfs I found something which appears to be an > unwanted side effect of xfs_release(). > > Apply the attached patch to xfstests and run generic/127. > > Result is: > > +ltp/fsx -q -l 262144 -o 65536 -S 191110531 -N 100000 fsx_std_mmap > +Mapped Read: non-zero data past EOF (0x8aa1) page offset 0xaa2 is 0xa091 > +LOG DUMP (70315 total operations): > > Thanks, > Miklos Hmm.... so I applied this and ran generic/127 on xfs: FSTYP -- xfs (debug) PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 magnolia-mtr00 4.16.0-rc5-xfsx MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1, /dev/pmem4 MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o usrquota,grpquota,prjquota, /dev/sda /opt generic/127 53s Ran: generic/127 Passed all 1 tests Reran a couple of times without seeing any problems, so what am I missing? Are you running xfstests atop overlayfs atop xfs? /me confused. :/ --D > --- > ltp/fsx.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > --- a/ltp/fsx.c > +++ b/ltp/fsx.c > @@ -647,6 +647,14 @@ check_trunc_hack(void) > } > } > > +static void openclose(int fd) > +{ > + char path[32]; > + > + sprintf(path, "/proc/self/fd/%i", fd); > + close(open(path, O_RDONLY)); > +} > + > void > doflush(unsigned offset, unsigned size) > { > @@ -799,6 +807,7 @@ domapread(unsigned offset, unsigned size > prterr("domapread: mmap"); > report_failure(190); > } > + openclose(fd); > memcpy(temp_buf, p + pg_offset, size); > > check_eofpage("Read", offset, p, size); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:18:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 04:50:02PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > While testing overlayfs I found something which appears to be an > > unwanted side effect of xfs_release(). > > > > Apply the attached patch to xfstests and run generic/127. > > > > Result is: > > > > +ltp/fsx -q -l 262144 -o 65536 -S 191110531 -N 100000 fsx_std_mmap > > +Mapped Read: non-zero data past EOF (0x8aa1) page offset 0xaa2 is 0xa091 > > +LOG DUMP (70315 total operations): > > > > Thanks, > > Miklos > > Hmm.... so I applied this and ran generic/127 on xfs: > > FSTYP -- xfs (debug) > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 magnolia-mtr00 4.16.0-rc5-xfsx > MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1, /dev/pmem4 > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o usrquota,grpquota,prjquota, /dev/sda /opt > > generic/127 53s > Ran: generic/127 > Passed all 1 tests > > Reran a couple of times without seeing any problems, so what am > I missing? Are you running xfstests atop overlayfs atop xfs? > > /me confused. :/ I'm betting it's timing related. the close can run a filemap_flush() call, so there's every chance the page is under IO during the mapread operation after the openclose() call. On pmem, it won't be under IO because the writeback IO is a synchronous memcpy.... CHeers, Dave.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:18:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 04:50:02PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> > While testing overlayfs I found something which appears to be an >> > unwanted side effect of xfs_release(). >> > >> > Apply the attached patch to xfstests and run generic/127. >> > >> > Result is: >> > >> > +ltp/fsx -q -l 262144 -o 65536 -S 191110531 -N 100000 fsx_std_mmap >> > +Mapped Read: non-zero data past EOF (0x8aa1) page offset 0xaa2 is 0xa091 >> > +LOG DUMP (70315 total operations): >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Miklos >> >> Hmm.... so I applied this and ran generic/127 on xfs: >> >> FSTYP -- xfs (debug) >> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 magnolia-mtr00 4.16.0-rc5-xfsx >> MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1, /dev/pmem4 >> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o usrquota,grpquota,prjquota, /dev/sda /opt >> >> generic/127 53s >> Ran: generic/127 >> Passed all 1 tests >> >> Reran a couple of times without seeing any problems, so what am >> I missing? Are you running xfstests atop overlayfs atop xfs? No, plain xfs. >> >> /me confused. :/ > > I'm betting it's timing related. the close can run a filemap_flush() > call, so there's every chance the page is under IO during the > mapread operation after the openclose() call. On pmem, it won't > be under IO because the writeback IO is a synchronous memcpy.... Forgot to mention that xfs partition is on virtio_blk device. Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--- ltp/fsx.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) --- a/ltp/fsx.c +++ b/ltp/fsx.c @@ -647,6 +647,14 @@ check_trunc_hack(void) } } +static void openclose(int fd) +{ + char path[32]; + + sprintf(path, "/proc/self/fd/%i", fd); + close(open(path, O_RDONLY)); +} + void doflush(unsigned offset, unsigned size) { @@ -799,6 +807,7 @@ domapread(unsigned offset, unsigned size prterr("domapread: mmap"); report_failure(190); } + openclose(fd); memcpy(temp_buf, p + pg_offset, size); check_eofpage("Read", offset, p, size);
While testing overlayfs I found something which appears to be an unwanted side effect of xfs_release(). Apply the attached patch to xfstests and run generic/127. Result is: +ltp/fsx -q -l 262144 -o 65536 -S 191110531 -N 100000 fsx_std_mmap +Mapped Read: non-zero data past EOF (0x8aa1) page offset 0xaa2 is 0xa091 +LOG DUMP (70315 total operations): Thanks, Miklos