From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFED6C54EE9 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 06:53:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 51A678E00AA; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 02:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4A2336B020A; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 02:53:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 31C428E00AA; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 02:53:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6946B0209 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 02:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1FE74079B for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 06:53:28 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79956949296.24.A44F719 Received: from mail1.bemta37.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta37.messagelabs.com [85.158.142.1]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B49120002 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 06:53:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fujitsu.com; s=170520fj; t=1664261606; i=@fujitsu.com; bh=yK1nJqacLKSnBPbpCxG30WNnRavYzcEhiUqR5c17txg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=R23i5HjYUBhWfivtYdEPFNSJXwP/5LVQrprSz35FF2tqoL21Fka0rdLmyWQpDBpv8 Hl7b0EuzmBfxgwZBNPGO01cu9b3joujpyLs0Xe0RbmWbWSlMFeEFQ2W6oT2Z1mzymF yva5839JelhKSUk+GASxfTChEROLDfQ7BngTzRkjxnsouJDN2ggPQK8rlGtFf9tzDv 19Pa72Kx3rNV5wk5VjurfvRi+KibYaiC/0kqNVCfMHPL1IQlR5fsL9EeayJE7sZ0n5 AUvfXv3vWq376H8IuMtButHCgxHV+2axHshlTbpWSwlIyAPiVAcjepOqm3cQ8ibthq gzrTw/ONYebcw== X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrNKsWRWlGSWpSXmKPExsViZ8ORpPt0rlG ywbN2JYvpUy8wWmw5do/R4vITPos9e0+yWFzeNYfN4t6a/6wWu/7sYLdY+eMPqwOHx6lFEh6L 97xk8ti0qpPNY9OnSeweLzbPZPT4vEkugC2KNTMvKb8igTVj9o+LbAU3tCvWbd/E1sDYotrFy MUhJLCRUWJx83JWCGcJk8S706uZIZztjBLX77QDOZwcvAJ2Evubf7CD2CwCqhL7Js5mgogLSp yc+YQFxBYVSJb4OvUiWFxYwFHi1dQWRhBbREBNYtKkHWBDmQWOMEr8WN7CDrWOUeLk5EtgU9k EdCQuLPjLCmJzClhLTDw3AcxmFrCQWPzmIDuELS/RvHU20CQODgkBJYmZ3fEgYQmBConG6YeY IGw1iavnNjFPYBSaheS+WUgmzUIyaQEj8ypGm6SizPSMktzEzBxdQwMDXUNDU11LM11DY0O9x CrdRL3UUt28/KKSDF0gv7xYL7W4WK+4Mjc5J0UvL7VkEyMw3lKKE5p3MN7b90vvEKMkB5OSKG 98j1GyEF9SfkplRmJxRnxRaU5q8SFGGQ4OJQnezllAOcGi1PTUirTMHGDsw6QlOHiURHg/zQB K8xYXJOYWZ6ZDpE4x6nJMnf1vP7MQS15+XqqUOO9MkBkCIEUZpXlwI2Bp6BKjrJQwLyMDA4MQ T0FqUW5mCar8K0ZxDkYlYd6Q2UBTeDLzSuA2vQI6ggnoCDs+fZAjShIRUlINTBP+7p64PKCpR SFwrvv9njVsdre+X7Pp+GE/Z0mQh/HyGc8+pFk7RZ+uCORZ5b15FVPGpQP1dsYmloKWn98dWh Amssa5ynLL+ctRPVOPNrwU3jjt4IpLJx/sMShNV1+gyst3dv7640sPN17jOukdyL9f27BwYaV Ft7WUk25+W3i3p5nh2rw1/7bIFajbs0RddNw4I2OrmoR9ru0TH6V5c5iSNxnf7uHpkd/p+5HH iMVBOpZxYeO+tZNeXk3pO3qmef8vma17NFilv3RPaOue5P9w8/lZ88+k14cW6CtFKtk9/KDR/ 1Zpd6/lBc6yHRG5ixZ3Czbr/2aPPM42O3LGM3vRLa7P9ty5r8e1Nab+qxJLcUaioRZzUXEiAE pCBay+AwAA X-Env-Sender: ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-745.messagelabs.com!1664261605!330972!1 X-Originating-IP: [62.60.8.98] X-SYMC-ESS-Client-Auth: outbound-route-from=pass X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 9.87.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 2978 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2022 06:53:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n03ukasimr03.n03.fujitsu.local) (62.60.8.98) by server-3.tower-745.messagelabs.com with ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted SMTP; 27 Sep 2022 06:53:25 -0000 Received: from n03ukasimr03.n03.fujitsu.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n03ukasimr03.n03.fujitsu.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA53A1AD; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 07:53:24 +0100 (BST) Received: from R01UKEXCASM121.r01.fujitsu.local (R01UKEXCASM121 [10.183.43.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by n03ukasimr03.n03.fujitsu.local (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEB661AB; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 07:53:24 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.22.78] (10.167.225.141) by R01UKEXCASM121.r01.fujitsu.local (10.183.43.173) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.32; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 07:53:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 14:53:14 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfs: drop experimental warning for fsdax To: Dave Chinner CC: , , , , , , References: <1663234002-17-1-git-send-email-ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com> <20220919045003.GJ3600936@dread.disaster.area> <20220919211533.GK3600936@dread.disaster.area> From: Shiyang Ruan In-Reply-To: <20220919211533.GK3600936@dread.disaster.area> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.225.141] X-ClientProxiedBy: G08CNEXCHPEKD07.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.80) To R01UKEXCASM121.r01.fujitsu.local (10.183.43.173) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1664261608; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=yK1nJqacLKSnBPbpCxG30WNnRavYzcEhiUqR5c17txg=; b=DJdNIcZJ6vA+yt4H/VoEeaHENcW4dZhiNawqFM76lr8Em12Kw8hU6ugRC0IBH58PYOHIiI yN42TY+4HYDSEY9yYSVboEavIe5pA+PqmqLuOyQ+R2ZLXtchPjAaN6VApHf7L0UntfU750 1Qdz0KFboJMMrIjn5l1tcwnjazNqWTY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=fujitsu.com header.s=170520fj header.b=R23i5HjY; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=fujitsu.com; spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com designates 85.158.142.1 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1664261608; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=dWI02/MzwDAdIE37sCAXSp5vn5zB0gB7LXdfvJPWftRZb74Sl5NYDr7aKEjryM+CtRLrKf Nngkx7Aw+QOj3TPsgAh4cKLJQW1kiZLUIvghmEp7OLmgThJHfabvv5jU/T4hFPmoNFoga+ Q5cX2/tiXty3buPPXfD8DZJWXxBHwa8= X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=fujitsu.com header.s=170520fj header.b=R23i5HjY; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=fujitsu.com; spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com designates 85.158.142.1 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam10 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 43B49120002 X-Stat-Signature: axffcdqoo6naqw3eujfk8psxoi6exd8d X-HE-Tag: 1664261608-88253 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 在 2022/9/20 5:15, Dave Chinner 写道: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 02:50:03PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:26:42AM +0000, Shiyang Ruan wrote: >>> Since reflink&fsdax can work together now, the last obstacle has been >>> resolved. It's time to remove restrictions and drop this warning. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Shiyang Ruan >> >> I haven't looked at reflink+DAX for some time, and I haven't tested >> it for even longer. So I'm currently running a v6.0-rc6 kernel with >> "-o dax=always" fstests run with reflink enabled and it's not >> looking very promising. >> >> All of the fsx tests are failing with data corruption, several >> reflink/clone tests are failing with -EINVAL (e.g. g/16[45]) and >> *lots* of tests are leaving stack traces from WARN() conditions in >> DAx operations such as dax_insert_entry(), dax_disassociate_entry(), >> dax_writeback_mapping_range(), iomap_iter() (called from >> dax_dedupe_file_range_compare()), and so on. >> >> At thsi point - the tests are still running - I'd guess that there's >> going to be at least 50 test failures by the time it completes - >> in comparison using "-o dax=never" results in just a single test >> failure and a lot more tests actually being run. > > The end results with dax+reflink were: > > SECTION -- xfs_dax > ========================= > > Failures: generic/051 generic/068 generic/074 generic/075 > generic/083 generic/091 generic/112 generic/127 generic/164 > generic/165 generic/175 generic/231 generic/232 generic/247 > generic/269 generic/270 generic/327 generic/340 generic/388 > generic/390 generic/413 generic/447 generic/461 generic/471 > generic/476 generic/517 generic/519 generic/560 generic/561 > generic/605 generic/617 generic/619 generic/630 generic/649 > generic/650 generic/656 generic/670 generic/672 xfs/011 xfs/013 > xfs/017 xfs/068 xfs/073 xfs/104 xfs/127 xfs/137 xfs/141 xfs/158 > xfs/168 xfs/179 xfs/243 xfs/297 xfs/305 xfs/328 xfs/440 xfs/442 > xfs/517 xfs/535 xfs/538 xfs/551 xfs/552 > Failed 61 of 1071 tests > > Ok, so I did a new no-reflink run as a baseline, because it is a > while since I've tested DAX at all: > > SECTION -- xfs_dax_noreflink > ========================= > Failures: generic/051 generic/068 generic/074 generic/075 > generic/083 generic/112 generic/231 generic/232 generic/269 > generic/270 generic/340 generic/388 generic/461 generic/471 > generic/476 generic/519 generic/560 generic/561 generic/617 > generic/650 generic/656 xfs/011 xfs/013 xfs/017 xfs/073 xfs/297 > xfs/305 xfs/517 xfs/538 > Failed 29 of 1071 tests > > Yeah, there's still lots of warnings from dax_insert_entry() and > friends like: > > [43262.025815] WARNING: CPU: 9 PID: 1309428 at fs/dax.c:380 dax_insert_entry+0x2ab/0x320 > [43262.028355] Modules linked in: > [43262.029386] CPU: 9 PID: 1309428 Comm: fsstress Tainted: G W 6.0.0-rc6-dgc+ #1543 > [43262.032168] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 > [43262.034840] RIP: 0010:dax_insert_entry+0x2ab/0x320 > [43262.036358] Code: 08 48 83 c4 30 5b 5d 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f c3 48 8b 58 20 48 8d 53 01 e9 65 ff ff ff 48 8b 58 20 48 8d 53 01 e9 50 ff ff ff <0f> 0b e9 70 ff ff ff 31 f6 4c 89 e7 e8 84 b1 5a 00 eb a4 48 81 e6 > [43262.042255] RSP: 0018:ffffc9000a0cbb78 EFLAGS: 00010002 > [43262.043946] RAX: ffffea0018cd1fc0 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: 0000000000000001 > [43262.046233] RDX: ffffea0000000000 RSI: 0000000000000221 RDI: ffffea0018cd2000 > [43262.048518] RBP: 0000000000000011 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 > [43262.050762] R10: ffff888241a6d318 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffffc9000a0cbc58 > [43262.053020] R13: ffff888241a6d318 R14: ffffc9000a0cbe20 R15: 0000000000000000 > [43262.055309] FS: 00007f8ce25e2b80(0000) GS:ffff8885fec80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > [43262.057859] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > [43262.059713] CR2: 00007f8ce25e1000 CR3: 0000000152141001 CR4: 0000000000060ee0 > [43262.061993] Call Trace: > [43262.062836] > [43262.063557] dax_fault_iter+0x243/0x600 > [43262.064802] dax_iomap_pte_fault+0x199/0x360 > [43262.066197] __xfs_filemap_fault+0x1e3/0x2c0 > [43262.067602] __do_fault+0x31/0x1d0 > [43262.068719] __handle_mm_fault+0xd6d/0x1650 > [43262.070083] ? do_mmap+0x348/0x540 > [43262.071200] handle_mm_fault+0x7a/0x1d0 > [43262.072449] ? __kvm_handle_async_pf+0x12/0xb0 > [43262.073908] exc_page_fault+0x1d9/0x810 > [43262.075123] asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30 > [43262.076413] RIP: 0033:0x7f8ce268bc23 > > So it looks to me like DAX is well and truly broken in 6.0-rc6. And, > yes, I'm running the fixes in mm-hotifxes-stable branch that allow > xfs/550 to pass. I have tested these two mode for many times: xfs_dax mode did failed so many cases. (If you tested with this "drop" patch, some warning around "dax_dedupe_file_range_compare()" won't occur any more.) I think warning around "dax_disassociate_entry()" is a problem with concurrency. Still looking into it. But xfs_dax_noreflink didn't have so many failure, just 3 in my environment: Failures: generic/471 generic/519 xfs/148. I am thinking that did you forget to reformat the TEST_DEV to be non-reflink before run the test? If so it will make sense. -- Thanks, Ruan. > > Who is actually testing this DAX code, and what are they actually > testing on? These are not random failures - I haven't run DAX > testing since ~5.18, and none of these failures were present on the > same DAX test VM running the same configuration back then.... > > -Dave.