Re: [LTP] [PATCH 6/7] runtest/fs: change parameters of growfiles

[Cyril H. <ch...@su...>]

Hi!
> > >> --- a/ltp-full-20101031/runtest/fs
> > >> +++ b/ltp-full-20101031/runtest/fs
> > >> @@ -14,9 +14,9 @@ gf12 mkfifo $TMPDIR/gffifo17; growfiles -b -W gf12 -e 1 -u -i 0 -L 30 $TMPDIR/gf
> > >>  gf13 mkfifo $TMPDIR/gffifo18; growfiles -b -W gf13 -e 1 -u -i 0 -L 30 -I r -r 1-4096 $TMPDIR/gffifo18
> > >>  gf14 growfiles -W gf14 -b -e 1 -u -i 0 -L 20 -w -l -C 1 -T 10 -f glseek19 -S 2 -d $TMPDIR
> > >>  gf15 growfiles -W gf15 -b -e 1 -u -r 1-49600 -I r -u -i 0 -L 120 -f Lgfile1 -d $TMPDIR
> > >> -gf16 growfiles -W gf16 -b -e 1 -i 0 -L 120 -u -g 4090 -T 100 -t 408990 -l -C 10 -c 1000 -S 10 -f Lgf02_ -d $TMPDIR
> > >> -gf17 growfiles -W gf17 -b -e 1 -i 0 -L 120 -u -g 5000 -T 100 -t 499990 -l -C 10 -c 1000 -S 10 -f Lgf03_ -d $TMPDIR
> > >>  gf18 growfiles -W gf18 -b -e 1 -i 0 -L 120 -w -u -r 10-5000 -I r -l -S 2 -f Lgf04_ -d $TMPDIR
> > >> +gf16 growfiles -W gf16 -b -e 1 -i 0 -L 120 -u -g 4090 -T 101 -t 408990 -l -C 10 -c 1000 -S 10 -f Lgf02_ -d $TMPDIR
> > >> +gf17 growfiles -W gf17 -b -e 1 -i 0 -L 120 -u -g 5000 -T 101 -t 499990 -l -C 10 -c 1000 -S 10 -f Lgf03_ -d $TMPDIR
> > >>  gf19 growfiles -W gf19 -b -e 1 -g 5000 -i 500 -t 49900 -T10 -c9 -I p -o O_RDWR,O_CREAT,O_TRUNC -u -f gf08i_ -d $TMPDIR
> > >>  gf20 growfiles -W gf20 -D 0 -b -i 0 -L 60 -u -B 1000b -e 1 -r 1-256000:512 -R 512-256000 -T 4 -f gfbigio-$$ -d $TMPDIR
> > >>  gf21 growfiles -W gf21 -D 0 -b -i 0 -L 60 -u -B 1000b -e 1 -g 20480 -T 10 -t 20480 -f gf-bld-$$ -d $TMPDIR
> > >
> > > Any reason why you have changed the order of the execution (the gf18 now preceeds gf16 and gf17)?
> > >
> > Sorry, that's my mistake.
> > I will resend the patch later.
> > 
> > > Also I'm not sure if 'shrinking on the same file' wasn't intentional
> > > (most likely not but I'm not sure yet).
> > >
> > We made the patch here for the following problem:
> > gf16/gf17 create 10 files and keep them growing and shrinking.
> > But shrinking on the same file leads the others to be growing only
> > which may cause the tests run out of memory.
> 
> Ah right, this should have been in the commit description and also the
> amount of the memory consumed. That makes clear why you did such change
> as the change itself doesn't define the problem that you hit...
>

Ping, any progress on this?

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
ch...@su...