[LU-15728] 'relatime' is not working properly - Whamcloud Community JIRA

Details

Type: Bug
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: Minor
Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.16.0
Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.12.7, Lustre 2.15.0
Labels:
None

Severity:
3
Rank (Obsolete):
9223372036854775807

Description

relatime behavior is properly managed by VFS, however Lustre also stores acmtime on OST objects and atime updates for OST objects should honor relatime behavior.

ci_noatime feature was introduced by ~~LU-3832~~ to properly honor noatime option for OST objects. However, the relatime management was not added at the same time, even if it uses the same function.

relatime could be fixed adding the missing parts from touch_atime() to also support relatime.

Attachments

Issue Links

is related to

LU-1783 sanity test_39l failed: atime is not updated

Open

Activity

[LU-15728] 'relatime' is not working properly

Peter Jones added a comment - 23/Feb/23 2:04 PM

Landed for 2.16

Peter Jones added a comment - 23/Feb/23 2:04 PM Landed for 2.16

Gerrit Updater added a comment - 23/Feb/23 6:35 AM

"Oleg Drokin <green@whamcloud.com>" merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/c/fs/lustre-release/+/50009/
Subject: ~~LU-15728~~ mdd: fix sanity-56oc failure
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set:
Commit: 8beeec77c3b426a01e1f10ca51149c7ca7e01b7e

Gerrit Updater added a comment - 23/Feb/23 6:35 AM "Oleg Drokin <green@whamcloud.com>" merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/c/fs/lustre-release/+/50009/ Subject: LU-15728 mdd: fix sanity-56oc failure Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: Commit: 8beeec77c3b426a01e1f10ca51149c7ca7e01b7e

Aurelien Degremont (Inactive) added a comment - 16/Feb/23 11:10 AM

Patch to fix the regression: https://review.whamcloud.com/c/fs/lustre-release/+/50009/

Aurelien Degremont (Inactive) added a comment - 16/Feb/23 11:10 AM Patch to fix the regression: https://review.whamcloud.com/c/fs/lustre-release/+/50009/

Andreas Dilger added a comment - 15/Feb/23 6:55 PM

Reopen to track sanity test_56oc failure triggered by this patch.

Andreas Dilger added a comment - 15/Feb/23 6:55 PM Reopen to track sanity test_56oc failure triggered by this patch.

Andreas Dilger added a comment - 15/Feb/23 6:50 PM

Any tips to find all failing occurences in Maloo with some query? I'm failing to do it.

Two easy ways to find similar failures. For any subtest failure report in Maloo, you can click on the failed subtest number and it will generate a search for failures of that subtest in the past week. You can then modify the query for specific date ranges, or limit it to specific branches, etc. There is a "link to this page" at the bottom to save the URL for future reference, like the following which searches from 2023-01-15 to 2023-02-15 and shows that the problem was hit once by the patch before landing on 2023-02-01, and then by other patches starting on 2023-02-07 after the patch landed:

https://testing.whamcloud.com/search?client_branch_type_id=24a6947e-04a9-11e1-bb5f-52540025f9af&server_branch_type_id=24a6947e-04a9-11e1-bb5f-52540025f9af&status%5B%5D=FAIL&test_set_script_id=f9516376-32bc-11e0-aaee-52540025f9ae&sub_test_script_id=cb9003f2-f26b-11e9-b62b-52540065bddc&start_date=2023-01-15&end_date=2023-02-15&source=sub_tests#redirect

Alternately, you can get to this search page from the "Results->Search" link at the top of any Maloo page, and then select "Sub tests" to limit the query to specific subtest failures, as opposed to whole "Test sets" failures.

Andreas Dilger added a comment - 15/Feb/23 6:50 PM Any tips to find all failing occurences in Maloo with some query? I'm failing to do it. Two easy ways to find similar failures. For any subtest failure report in Maloo, you can click on the failed subtest number and it will generate a search for failures of that subtest in the past week. You can then modify the query for specific date ranges, or limit it to specific branches, etc. There is a " link to this page " at the bottom to save the URL for future reference, like the following which searches from 2023-01-15 to 2023-02-15 and shows that the problem was hit once by the patch before landing on 2023-02-01, and then by other patches starting on 2023-02-07 after the patch landed: https://testing.whamcloud.com/search?client_branch_type_id=24a6947e-04a9-11e1-bb5f-52540025f9af&server_branch_type_id=24a6947e-04a9-11e1-bb5f-52540025f9af&status%5B%5D=FAIL&test_set_script_id=f9516376-32bc-11e0-aaee-52540025f9ae&sub_test_script_id=cb9003f2-f26b-11e9-b62b-52540065bddc&start_date=2023-01-15&end_date=2023-02-15&source=sub_tests#redirect Alternately, you can get to this search page from the " Results->Search " link at the top of any Maloo page , and then select " Sub tests " to limit the query to specific subtest failures, as opposed to whole " Test sets " failures.

Aurelien Degremont (Inactive) added a comment - 15/Feb/23 4:52 PM

I think i found the reason.

It also forces atime to disk on MDD if ondisk atime is older than ondisk mtime/ctime to match relatime (even if relatime is not enabled)

This code change shows the culprit: https://review.whamcloud.com/c/fs/lustre-release/+/47017/1/lustre/tests/sanity.sh#5123

That's a change that Andreas asked for in https://review.whamcloud.com/c/fs/lustre-release/+/47017/1/lustre/tests/sanity.sh#5123

I reproduced the failure and did not without that change in that Gerrit patch (https://review.whamcloud.com/c/fs/lustre-release/+/50009/2)

I need to think about it

Aurelien Degremont (Inactive) added a comment - 15/Feb/23 4:52 PM I think i found the reason. It also forces atime to disk on MDD if ondisk atime is older than ondisk mtime/ctime to match relatime (even if relatime is not enabled) This code change shows the culprit: https://review.whamcloud.com/c/fs/lustre-release/+/47017/1/lustre/tests/sanity.sh#5123 That's a change that Andreas asked for in https://review.whamcloud.com/c/fs/lustre-release/+/47017/1/lustre/tests/sanity.sh#5123 I reproduced the failure and did not without that change in that Gerrit patch ( https://review.whamcloud.com/c/fs/lustre-release/+/50009/2 ) I need to think about it

Alex Zhuravlev added a comment - 14/Feb/23 3:49 PM

subtest search in Maloo for sanity/test_56oc ?

Alex Zhuravlev added a comment - 14/Feb/23 3:49 PM subtest search in Maloo for sanity/test_56oc ?

Aurelien Degremont (Inactive) added a comment - 14/Feb/23 1:55 PM

Any tips to find all failing occurences in Maloo with some query? I'm failing to do it.

Aurelien Degremont (Inactive) added a comment - 14/Feb/23 1:55 PM Any tips to find all failing occurences in Maloo with some query? I'm failing to do it.

Aurelien Degremont (Inactive) added a comment - 14/Feb/23 1:50 PM

I'll look at it

Aurelien Degremont (Inactive) added a comment - 14/Feb/23 1:50 PM I'll look at it

Alex Zhuravlev added a comment - 09/Feb/23 4:53 AM

with this patch landed sanity/56oc started to fail sometimes:

54eb6da1f8	1	0	1	BAD	LU-16477 ldiskfs: Add ext4-enc-flag patch for RHEL9
c10c6eeb37	6	5	1	BAD	LU-15728 llite: fix relatime support
0c05dc21ab	6	6	0	GOOD	LU-6142 ldlm: minor list_entry improvements in ldlm_request.c
685fb4b17f	6	6	0	GOOD	LU-6142 ldlm: use list_for_each_entry in ldlm_lock.c
93230059ab	6	6	0	GOOD	LU-12275 tests: skip new nodemap params on old MGS
2f8f38effa	6	6	0	GOOD	LU-16412 llite: check read page past requested
4b47c233b3	6	6	0	GOOD	LU-16457 tests: wait for remote sleep in sanity-pcc/101a
5a5bd5b4da	6	6	0	GOOD	LU-16159 osp: destroy should not overtake writes

Alex Zhuravlev added a comment - 09/Feb/23 4:53 AM with this patch landed sanity/56oc started to fail sometimes: 54eb6da1f8 1 0 1 BAD LU-16477 ldiskfs: Add ext4-enc-flag patch for RHEL9 c10c6eeb37 6 5 1 BAD LU-15728 llite: fix relatime support 0c05dc21ab 6 6 0 GOOD LU-6142 ldlm: minor list_entry improvements in ldlm_request.c 685fb4b17f 6 6 0 GOOD LU-6142 ldlm: use list_for_each_entry in ldlm_lock.c 93230059ab 6 6 0 GOOD LU-12275 tests: skip new nodemap params on old MGS 2f8f38effa 6 6 0 GOOD LU-16412 llite: check read page past requested 4b47c233b3 6 6 0 GOOD LU-16457 tests: wait for remote sleep in sanity-pcc/101a 5a5bd5b4da 6 6 0 GOOD LU-16159 osp: destroy should not overtake writes

People

Assignee:: Aurelien Degremont (Inactive)

Reporter:: Aurelien Degremont (Inactive)

Votes:: 1 Vote for this issue

Watchers:: 8 Start watching this issue

Dates

Created:: 08/Apr/22 1:16 PM

Updated:: 21/Aug/23 8:47 AM

Resolved:: 23/Feb/23 2:04 PM