Re: [PATCH] generic: create and delete files repeatedly to exercise ENOSPC behaviour

2016-11-02 Thread Eryu Guan 
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 06:22:58PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
> hi Eryu,
> 
> There has already be a generic/102 doing this test...
> Thanks for you kindly review and sorry for wasting your time.

I had impression yesterday that we have a case that does exactly the
same test, and I searched but didn't find it.. It turns out that we do
have it already :)

Thanks for writing new test cases!

Eryu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] generic: create and delete files repeatedly to exercise ENOSPC behaviour

2016-11-02 Thread Wang Xiaoguang 

hi,

On 11/02/2016 09:27 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:

On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:19:30PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:

In btrfs, sometimes though the number of created files' consumed disk space
are not larger than fs's free space, we can still get some ENOSPC error, it
may be that btrfs does not try hard to reclaim disk space(I have sent kernel
patch to resolve this kind of enospc error. Note, this false enospc error
will not always happen even in kernel without my fixing patch).

Currently only in btrfs, I get this ENOSPC error, xfs and ext4 work well.

.

+RUN_TIME=$((600 * $TIME_FACTOR))
+fs_size=$((15 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024))
+_scratch_mkfs_sized $fs_size > $seqres.full 2>&1
+_scratch_mount > $seqres.full 2>&1
+
+testfile1=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile1
+testfile2=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile2
+filesize1=$(((fs_size * 80) / 100))
+filesize2=$(((fs_size * 5) / 100))
+
+do_test()
+{
+   while [ -f $SCRATCH_MNT/run ]; do
+   $XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite 0 $filesize1" $testfile1 > /dev/null
+   $XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite 0 $filesize2" $testfile2 > /dev/null
+   rm -f $testfile1 $testfile2
+   done
+}

What are you trying to test here that other ENOSPC tests
don't exercise? Why cant you just use preallocation to trigger
ENOSPC repeatedly instead of writing data? That would allow multiple
iterations per second, not one every few minutes...

Yes, generic/102 just does this job, sorry.

Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang



Cheers,

Dave.




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] generic: create and delete files repeatedly to exercise ENOSPC behaviour

2016-11-02 Thread Wang Xiaoguang 

hi Eryu,

There has already be a generic/102 doing this test...
Thanks for you kindly review and sorry for wasting your time.

Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang

On 11/01/2016 08:26 PM, Eryu Guan wrote:

On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:19:30PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:

In btrfs, sometimes though the number of created files' consumed disk space
are not larger than fs's free space, we can still get some ENOSPC error, it
may be that btrfs does not try hard to reclaim disk space(I have sent kernel
patch to resolve this kind of enospc error. Note, this false enospc error
will not always happen even in kernel without my fixing patch).

Currently only in btrfs, I get this ENOSPC error, xfs and ext4 work well.

Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang 
---
  tests/generic/389 | 78 +++
  tests/generic/389.out |  2 ++
  tests/generic/group   |  1 +
  3 files changed, 81 insertions(+)
  create mode 100755 tests/generic/389
  create mode 100644 tests/generic/389.out

diff --git a/tests/generic/389 b/tests/generic/389
new file mode 100755
index 000..96bc12e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/generic/389
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+#! /bin/bash
+# FS QA Test 389
+#
+# Create and delete files repeatedly to exercise ENOSPC behaviour.

Trailing whitespace in this line.


+#
+#---
+# Copyright (c) 2016 Fujitsu.  All Rights Reserved.
+#
+# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
+# published by the Free Software Foundation.
+#
+# This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful,
+# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+# GNU General Public License for more details.
+#
+# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+# along with this program; if not, write the Free Software Foundation,
+# Inc.,  51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
+#---
+#
+
+seq=`basename $0`
+seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq
+echo "QA output created by $seq"
+
+here=`pwd`
+tmp=/tmp/$$
+status=1   # failure is the default!
+trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15
+
+_cleanup()
+{
+   cd /
+   rm -f $tmp.*
+}
+
+# get standard environment, filters and checks
+. ./common/rc
+. ./common/filter
+
+# remove previous $seqres.full before test
+rm -f $seqres.full
+
+# Modify as appropriate.
+_supported_fs generic
+_supported_os Linux
+_require_scratch
+
+RUN_TIME=$((600 * $TIME_FACTOR))

Hmm, does it really need 600s to run? I think it's better to limit the
runtime within 300s and make it an 'auto' test. I, personally, prefer a
"loop count" based test, I'd find out a minimum loop count that could
reproduce the ENOSPC problem more reliably on btrfs (for example, say
75%) and make the count scale with LOAD_FACTOR.


+fs_size=$((15 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024))

And does it really need 15G on SCRATCH_DEV? A smaller fs size makes test
run faster, and gives the test more chance to be run, because not
everyone has a 15G SCRATCH_DEV.


+_scratch_mkfs_sized $fs_size > $seqres.full 2>&1
+_scratch_mount > $seqres.full 2>&1

Append to $seqres.full not overwrite.


+
+testfile1=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile1
+testfile2=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile2
+filesize1=$(((fs_size * 80) / 100))
+filesize2=$(((fs_size * 5) / 100))

Better to have some comments on the filesizes chosen here. e.g. someone
may wonder that why it's testing ENOSPC condition with 85% full, not 99%
or 100%.


+
+do_test()
+{
+   while [ -f $SCRATCH_MNT/run ]; do
+   $XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite 0 $filesize1" $testfile1 > /dev/null
+   $XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite 0 $filesize2" $testfile2 > /dev/null
+   rm -f $testfile1 $testfile2

Trailing whitespace here.


+   done
+}
+
+echo "Silence is golden"
+touch $SCRATCH_MNT/run
+do_test &
+sleep $RUN_TIME
+rm -f $SCRATCH_MNT/run
+wait
+
+status=0
+exit
diff --git a/tests/generic/389.out b/tests/generic/389.out
new file mode 100644
index 000..e8c24bb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/generic/389.out
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+QA output created by 389
+Silence is golden

Can you please rebase on top of current master? generic/389 is already
taken, and it makes applying & testing the patch a litter harder :)


diff --git a/tests/generic/group b/tests/generic/group
index fc32cfd..b6d4013 100644
--- a/tests/generic/group
+++ b/tests/generic/group
@@ -391,3 +391,4 @@
  386 auto quick quota
  387 auto clone
  388 auto log metadata
+389 enospc

Perhaps we can add it to 'rw' group too.

Thanks,
Eryu






--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] generic: create and delete files repeatedly to exercise ENOSPC behaviour

2016-11-01 Thread Dave Chinner 
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:19:30PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
> In btrfs, sometimes though the number of created files' consumed disk space
> are not larger than fs's free space, we can still get some ENOSPC error, it
> may be that btrfs does not try hard to reclaim disk space(I have sent kernel
> patch to resolve this kind of enospc error. Note, this false enospc error
> will not always happen even in kernel without my fixing patch).
> 
> Currently only in btrfs, I get this ENOSPC error, xfs and ext4 work well.
.
> +RUN_TIME=$((600 * $TIME_FACTOR))
> +fs_size=$((15 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024))
> +_scratch_mkfs_sized $fs_size > $seqres.full 2>&1
> +_scratch_mount > $seqres.full 2>&1
> +
> +testfile1=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile1
> +testfile2=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile2
> +filesize1=$(((fs_size * 80) / 100))
> +filesize2=$(((fs_size * 5) / 100))
> +
> +do_test()
> +{
> + while [ -f $SCRATCH_MNT/run ]; do
> + $XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite 0 $filesize1" $testfile1 > /dev/null
> + $XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite 0 $filesize2" $testfile2 > /dev/null
> + rm -f $testfile1 $testfile2 
> + done
> +}

What are you trying to test here that other ENOSPC tests
don't exercise? Why cant you just use preallocation to trigger
ENOSPC repeatedly instead of writing data? That would allow multiple
iterations per second, not one every few minutes...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] generic: create and delete files repeatedly to exercise ENOSPC behaviour

2016-11-01 Thread Eryu Guan 
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:19:30PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
> In btrfs, sometimes though the number of created files' consumed disk space
> are not larger than fs's free space, we can still get some ENOSPC error, it
> may be that btrfs does not try hard to reclaim disk space(I have sent kernel
> patch to resolve this kind of enospc error. Note, this false enospc error
> will not always happen even in kernel without my fixing patch).
> 
> Currently only in btrfs, I get this ENOSPC error, xfs and ext4 work well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang 
> ---
>  tests/generic/389 | 78 
> +++
>  tests/generic/389.out |  2 ++
>  tests/generic/group   |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 81 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100755 tests/generic/389
>  create mode 100644 tests/generic/389.out
> 
> diff --git a/tests/generic/389 b/tests/generic/389
> new file mode 100755
> index 000..96bc12e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/generic/389
> @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
> +#! /bin/bash
> +# FS QA Test 389
> +#
> +# Create and delete files repeatedly to exercise ENOSPC behaviour. 

Trailing whitespace in this line.

> +#
> +#---
> +# Copyright (c) 2016 Fujitsu.  All Rights Reserved.
> +#
> +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> +# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> +# published by the Free Software Foundation.
> +#
> +# This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful,
> +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> +# GNU General Public License for more details.
> +#
> +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> +# along with this program; if not, write the Free Software Foundation,
> +# Inc.,  51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
> +#---
> +#
> +
> +seq=`basename $0`
> +seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq
> +echo "QA output created by $seq"
> +
> +here=`pwd`
> +tmp=/tmp/$$
> +status=1 # failure is the default!
> +trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15
> +
> +_cleanup()
> +{
> + cd /
> + rm -f $tmp.*
> +}
> +
> +# get standard environment, filters and checks
> +. ./common/rc
> +. ./common/filter
> +
> +# remove previous $seqres.full before test
> +rm -f $seqres.full
> +
> +# Modify as appropriate.
> +_supported_fs generic
> +_supported_os Linux
> +_require_scratch
> +
> +RUN_TIME=$((600 * $TIME_FACTOR))

Hmm, does it really need 600s to run? I think it's better to limit the
runtime within 300s and make it an 'auto' test. I, personally, prefer a
"loop count" based test, I'd find out a minimum loop count that could
reproduce the ENOSPC problem more reliably on btrfs (for example, say
75%) and make the count scale with LOAD_FACTOR.

> +fs_size=$((15 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024))

And does it really need 15G on SCRATCH_DEV? A smaller fs size makes test
run faster, and gives the test more chance to be run, because not
everyone has a 15G SCRATCH_DEV.

> +_scratch_mkfs_sized $fs_size > $seqres.full 2>&1
> +_scratch_mount > $seqres.full 2>&1

Append to $seqres.full not overwrite.

> +
> +testfile1=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile1
> +testfile2=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile2
> +filesize1=$(((fs_size * 80) / 100))
> +filesize2=$(((fs_size * 5) / 100))

Better to have some comments on the filesizes chosen here. e.g. someone
may wonder that why it's testing ENOSPC condition with 85% full, not 99%
or 100%.

> +
> +do_test()
> +{
> + while [ -f $SCRATCH_MNT/run ]; do
> + $XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite 0 $filesize1" $testfile1 > /dev/null
> + $XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite 0 $filesize2" $testfile2 > /dev/null
> + rm -f $testfile1 $testfile2 

Trailing whitespace here.

> + done
> +}
> +
> +echo "Silence is golden"
> +touch $SCRATCH_MNT/run
> +do_test &
> +sleep $RUN_TIME
> +rm -f $SCRATCH_MNT/run
> +wait
> +
> +status=0
> +exit
> diff --git a/tests/generic/389.out b/tests/generic/389.out
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..e8c24bb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/generic/389.out
> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> +QA output created by 389
> +Silence is golden

Can you please rebase on top of current master? generic/389 is already
taken, and it makes applying & testing the patch a litter harder :)

> diff --git a/tests/generic/group b/tests/generic/group
> index fc32cfd..b6d4013 100644
> --- a/tests/generic/group
> +++ b/tests/generic/group
> @@ -391,3 +391,4 @@
>  386 auto quick quota
>  387 auto clone
>  388 auto log metadata
> +389 enospc

Perhaps we can add it to 'rw' group too.

Thanks,
Eryu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH] generic: create and delete files repeatedly to exercise ENOSPC behaviour

2016-11-01 Thread Wang Xiaoguang 
In btrfs, sometimes though the number of created files' consumed disk space
are not larger than fs's free space, we can still get some ENOSPC error, it
may be that btrfs does not try hard to reclaim disk space(I have sent kernel
patch to resolve this kind of enospc error. Note, this false enospc error
will not always happen even in kernel without my fixing patch).

Currently only in btrfs, I get this ENOSPC error, xfs and ext4 work well.

Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang 
---
 tests/generic/389 | 78 +++
 tests/generic/389.out |  2 ++
 tests/generic/group   |  1 +
 3 files changed, 81 insertions(+)
 create mode 100755 tests/generic/389
 create mode 100644 tests/generic/389.out

diff --git a/tests/generic/389 b/tests/generic/389
new file mode 100755
index 000..96bc12e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/generic/389
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+#! /bin/bash
+# FS QA Test 389
+#
+# Create and delete files repeatedly to exercise ENOSPC behaviour. 
+#
+#---
+# Copyright (c) 2016 Fujitsu.  All Rights Reserved.
+#
+# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
+# published by the Free Software Foundation.
+#
+# This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful,
+# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+# GNU General Public License for more details.
+#
+# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+# along with this program; if not, write the Free Software Foundation,
+# Inc.,  51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
+#---
+#
+
+seq=`basename $0`
+seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq
+echo "QA output created by $seq"
+
+here=`pwd`
+tmp=/tmp/$$
+status=1   # failure is the default!
+trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15
+
+_cleanup()
+{
+   cd /
+   rm -f $tmp.*
+}
+
+# get standard environment, filters and checks
+. ./common/rc
+. ./common/filter
+
+# remove previous $seqres.full before test
+rm -f $seqres.full
+
+# Modify as appropriate.
+_supported_fs generic
+_supported_os Linux
+_require_scratch
+
+RUN_TIME=$((600 * $TIME_FACTOR))
+fs_size=$((15 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024))
+_scratch_mkfs_sized $fs_size > $seqres.full 2>&1
+_scratch_mount > $seqres.full 2>&1
+
+testfile1=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile1
+testfile2=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile2
+filesize1=$(((fs_size * 80) / 100))
+filesize2=$(((fs_size * 5) / 100))
+
+do_test()
+{
+   while [ -f $SCRATCH_MNT/run ]; do
+   $XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite 0 $filesize1" $testfile1 > /dev/null
+   $XFS_IO_PROG -fc "pwrite 0 $filesize2" $testfile2 > /dev/null
+   rm -f $testfile1 $testfile2 
+   done
+}
+
+echo "Silence is golden"
+touch $SCRATCH_MNT/run
+do_test &
+sleep $RUN_TIME
+rm -f $SCRATCH_MNT/run
+wait
+
+status=0
+exit
diff --git a/tests/generic/389.out b/tests/generic/389.out
new file mode 100644
index 000..e8c24bb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/generic/389.out
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+QA output created by 389
+Silence is golden
diff --git a/tests/generic/group b/tests/generic/group
index fc32cfd..b6d4013 100644
--- a/tests/generic/group
+++ b/tests/generic/group
@@ -391,3 +391,4 @@
 386 auto quick quota
 387 auto clone
 388 auto log metadata
+389 enospc
-- 
2.7.4



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html