Re: [xfstests PATCH v3 1/5] generic: add a writeback error handling test
From: Eryu Guan
Date: Tue Jun 06 2017 - 08:23:36 EST
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 06:15:57AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 16:58 +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 09:08:16AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > I'm working on a set of kernel patches to change how writeback errors
> > > are handled and reported in the kernel. Instead of reporting a
> > > writeback error to only the first fsync caller on the file, I aim
> > > to make the kernel report them once on every file description.
> > >
> > > This patch adds a test for the new behavior. Basically, open many fds
> > > to the same file, turn on dm_error, write to each of the fds, and then
> > > fsync them all to ensure that they all get an error back.
> > >
> > > To do that, I'm adding a new tools/dmerror script that the C program
> > > can use to load the error table. For now, that's all it can do, but
> > > we can fill it out with other commands as necessary.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for the new tests! And sorry for the late review..
> >
> > It's testing a new behavior on error reporting on writeback, I'm not
> > sure if we can call it a new feature or it fixed a bug? But it's more
> > like a behavior change, I'm not sure how to categorize it.
> >
> > Because if it's testing a new feature, we usually let test do proper
> > detection of current test environment (based on actual behavior not
> > kernel version) and _notrun on filesystems that don't have this feature
> > yet, instead of failing the test; if it's testing a bug fix, we could
> > leave the test fail on unfixed filesystems, this also serves as a
> > reminder that there's bug to fix.
> >
>
> Thanks for the review! I'm not sure how to categorize this either. Since
> the plan is to convert all the filesystems piecemeal, maybe we should
> just consider it a new feature.
Then we need a new _require rule to properly detect for the 'feature'
support. I'm not sure if this is doable, but something like
_require_statx, _require_seek_data_hole would be good.
>
> > I pulled your test kernel tree, and test passed on EXT4 but failed on
> > other local filesystems (XFS, btrfs). I assume that's expected.
> >
> > Besides this kinda high-level question, some minor comments inline.
> >
>
> Yes, ext4 should pass on my latest kernel tree, but everything else
> should fail.
With the new _require rule, test should _notrun on XFS and btrfs then.
>
> > > ---
> > > common/dmerror | 13 ++--
> > > doc/auxiliary-programs.txt | 8 +++
> > > src/Makefile | 2 +-
> > > src/fsync-err.c | 161 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > New binary needs an entry in .gitignore file.
> >
>
> OK, thanks. Will fix.
>
> > > tests/generic/999 | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > tests/generic/999.out | 3 +
> > > tests/generic/group | 1 +
> > > tools/dmerror | 44 +++++++++++++
> >
> > This file is used by the test, then it should be in src/ directory and
> > be installed along with other executable files on "make install".
> > Because files under tools/ are not installed. Most people will run tests
> > in the root dir of xfstests and this is not a problem, but there're
> > still cases people do "make && make install" and run fstests from
> > /var/lib/xfstests (default installation target).
> >
>
> Ok, no problem. I'll move it. I wasn't sure here since dmerror is a
> shell script, and most of the stuff in src/ is stuff that needs to be
> built.
We do have a few perl or shell scripts in src/ dir, we can see this from
src/Makefile
$(LTINSTALL) -m 755 fill2attr fill2fs fill2fs_check scaleread.sh $(PKG_LIB_DIR)/src
>
> > > 8 files changed, 302 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 src/fsync-err.c
> > > create mode 100755 tests/generic/999
> > > create mode 100644 tests/generic/999.out
> > > create mode 100755 tools/dmerror
> > >
> > > diff --git a/common/dmerror b/common/dmerror
> > > index d46c5d0b7266..238baa213b1f 100644
> > > --- a/common/dmerror
> > > +++ b/common/dmerror
> > > @@ -23,22 +23,25 @@ if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
> > > _notrun "Cannot run tests with DAX on dmerror devices"
> > > fi
> > >
> > > -_dmerror_init()
> > > +_dmerror_setup()
> > > {
> > > local dm_backing_dev=$SCRATCH_DEV
> > >
> > > - $DMSETUP_PROG remove error-test > /dev/null 2>&1
> > > -
> > > local blk_dev_size=`blockdev --getsz $dm_backing_dev`
> > >
> > > DMERROR_DEV='/dev/mapper/error-test'
> > >
> > > DMLINEAR_TABLE="0 $blk_dev_size linear $dm_backing_dev 0"
> > >
> > > + DMERROR_TABLE="0 $blk_dev_size error $dm_backing_dev 0"
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +_dmerror_init()
> > > +{
> > > + _dmerror_setup
> > > + $DMSETUP_PROG remove error-test > /dev/null 2>&1
> > > $DMSETUP_PROG create error-test --table "$DMLINEAR_TABLE" || \
> > > _fatal "failed to create dm linear device"
> > > -
> > > - DMERROR_TABLE="0 $blk_dev_size error $dm_backing_dev 0"
> > > }
> > >
> > > _dmerror_mount()
> > > diff --git a/doc/auxiliary-programs.txt b/doc/auxiliary-programs.txt
> > > index 21ef118596b6..191ac0596511 100644
> > > --- a/doc/auxiliary-programs.txt
> > > +++ b/doc/auxiliary-programs.txt
> > > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ note the dependency with:
> > > Contents:
> > >
> > > - af_unix -- Create an AF_UNIX socket
> > > + - fsync-err -- tests fsync error reporting after failed writeback
> > > - open_by_handle -- open_by_handle_at syscall exercise
> > > - stat_test -- statx syscall exercise
> > > - t_dir_type -- print directory entries and their file type
> > > @@ -30,6 +31,13 @@ af_unix
> > >
> > > The af_unix program creates an AF_UNIX socket at the given location.
> > >
> > > +fsync-err
> > > + Specialized program for testing how the kernel reports errors that
> > > + occur during writeback. Works in conjunction with the dmerror script
> > > + in tools/ to write data to a device, and then force it to fail
> > > + writeback and test that errors are reported during fsync and cleared
> > > + afterward.
> > > +
> > > open_by_handle
> > >
> > > The open_by_handle program exercises the open_by_handle_at() system
> > > diff --git a/src/Makefile b/src/Makefile
> > > index 4ec01975f8f7..b79c4d84d31b 100644
> > > --- a/src/Makefile
> > > +++ b/src/Makefile
> > > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ TARGETS = dirstress fill fill2 getpagesize holes lstat64 \
> > > multi_open_unlink dmiperf unwritten_sync genhashnames t_holes \
> > > t_mmap_writev t_truncate_cmtime dirhash_collide t_rename_overwrite \
> > > holetest t_truncate_self t_mmap_dio af_unix t_mmap_stale_pmd \
> > > - t_mmap_cow_race
> > > + t_mmap_cow_race fsync-err
> > >
> > > LINUX_TARGETS = xfsctl bstat t_mtab getdevicesize preallo_rw_pattern_reader \
> > > preallo_rw_pattern_writer ftrunc trunc fs_perms testx looptest \
> > > diff --git a/src/fsync-err.c b/src/fsync-err.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..cbeb37fb1790
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/src/fsync-err.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
> > > +/*
> > > + * fsync-err.c: test whether writeback errors are reported to all open fds
> > > + * and properly cleared as expected after being seen once on each
> > > + *
> > > + * Copyright (c) 2017: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > + */
> > > +#include <sys/types.h>
> > > +#include <sys/stat.h>
> > > +#include <errno.h>
> > > +#include <fcntl.h>
> > > +#include <stdlib.h>
> > > +#include <stdio.h>
> > > +#include <string.h>
> > > +#include <unistd.h>
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * btrfs has a fixed stripewidth of 64k, so we need to write enough data to
> > > + * ensure that we hit both stripes.
> > > + *
> > > + * FIXME: have the test script pass in the length?
> > > + */
> > > +#define BUFSIZE (65 * 1024)
> > > +
> > > +/* FIXME: should this be tunable */
> > > +#define NUM_FDS 10
> >
> > Passed through command line parameter, and default value is 10 if not
> > specified?
> >
>
> Sure. Perhaps we should do the same with BUFSIZE? Particularly if we
> need to vary it between fs'.
>
> > > +
> > > +static void usage() {
> > > + fprintf(stderr, "Usage: fsync-err <filename>\n");
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > > +{
> > > + int fd[NUM_FDS], ret, i;
> > > + char *fname, *buf;
> > > +
> > > + if (argc < 1) {
> > > + usage();
> > > + return 1;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* First argument is filename */
> > > + fname = argv[1];
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < NUM_FDS; ++i) {
> > > + fd[i] = open(fname, O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC, 0644);
> > > + if (fd[i] < 0) {
> > > + printf("open of fd[%d] failed: %m\n", i);
> > > + return 1;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + buf = malloc(BUFSIZE);
> > > + if (!buf) {
> > > + printf("malloc failed: %m\n");
> > > + return 1;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + memset(buf, 0x7c, BUFSIZE);
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < NUM_FDS; ++i) {
> > > + ret = write(fd[i], buf, BUFSIZE);
> > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > + printf("First write on fd[%d] failed: %m\n", i);
> > > + return 1;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < NUM_FDS; ++i) {
> > > + ret = fsync(fd[i]);
> > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > + printf("First fsync on fd[%d] failed: %m\n", i);
> > > + return 1;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* flip the device to non-working mode */
> > > + ret = system("./tools/dmerror load_error_table");
> >
> > Hmm, how about passing these "load error table" and "load working table"
> > commands through command line parameters too?
> >
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + if (WIFEXITED(ret))
> > > + printf("system: program exited: %d\n",
> > > + WEXITSTATUS(ret));
> > > + else
> > > + printf("system: 0x%x\n", (int)ret);
> > > +
> > > + return 1;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < NUM_FDS; ++i) {
> > > + ret = write(fd[i], buf, strlen(buf) + 1);
> > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > + printf("Second write on fd[%d] failed: %m\n", i);
> > > + return 1;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < NUM_FDS; ++i) {
> > > + ret = fsync(fd[i]);
> > > + /* Now, we EXPECT the error! */
> > > + if (ret >= 0) {
> > > + printf("Success on second fsync on fd[%d]!\n", i);
> > > + return 1;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < NUM_FDS; ++i) {
> > > + ret = fsync(fd[i]);
> > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > + /* Now the error should be clear */
> >
> > It's not obvious to me why error should be clear at this stage, adding
> > some comments would be good.
> >
>
> Ok. FWIW:
>
> We did some writes to a failing device and called fsync and got an error
> back. Since no more data was written since then, we don't expect to see
> an error at this point since it should have been "cleared".
Thanks! It wasn't clear to me until I read your kernel patch :)
Thanks,
Eryu