[LU-2429] easy to find bad client

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Cannot Reproduce
• Priority: Minor
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 1.8.x (1.8.0 - 1.8.5)
• Environment: lustre 1.8.8 RHEL5
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: Bruno Faccini (Inactive)
• Reporter: Shuichi Ihara (Inactive)

Description

we have a network problem at the customer site, the clients are still running, but network is unstable. In that situation, sometimes Lustre servers refuses new connections due to still waiting some active RPC finish.

e.g.)
Nov 6 10:51:00 oss212 kernel: Lustre: 21280:0:(ldlm_lib.c:874:target_handle_connect()) LARGE01-OST004c: refuse reconnection from 6279e611-9d6b-3d6a-bab4-e76cf925282f@560@gni to 0xffff81043d807a00; still busy with 1 active RPCs
Nov 6 10:51:16 oss212 kernel: LustreError: 21337:0:(ldlm_lib.c:1919:target_send_reply_msg()) @@@ processing error (107) req@ffff8106a3c46400 x1415646605273905/t0 o400><?>@<?>:0/0 lens 192/0 e 0 to 0 dl 1352166761 ref 1 fl Interpret:H/0/0 rc -107/0

Some cases, we can find bad client and reboot them or evict servers and reconnect, then situation can be back.

Howerver, most of cases, it's hard to find bad client, and keeping the error messages. If we can find bad client, new clients can't reconnect until all clients reboot. this is not good idea..

Any good idea to easy find bad client when the above logs happen?

Issue Links

• is related to: LU-793 Reconnections should not be refused when there is a request in progress from this client.

Comments

[Peter Jones]

ok thanks Ihara

[Shuichi Ihara (Inactive)]

if we hit same problem again at this site, I will reopen with new ticket, so, at this moment, please close this ticket.

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

So do you agree to close this ticket ??

[Shuichi Ihara (Inactive)]

Hi Bruno,

Sorry, delayed updates on this. We haven't seen same problem and even been able to reproduce problem since the final crash we did...

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

Ihara, Any news ?? Please can you provide us with a status for this ticket ??

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

Hello Ihara,
Any news on this issue ??
Have you been able to apply the work-around and/or get a new crash-dump ??
Bruno.

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

No, I am afraid that only "data=writeback" can be thought as a work-around according to the problem you encounter. But again, it can only be used as a work-around and we need to understand your problem's root-cause because even running with it you may finally later end-up in an other hung situation ...

[Shuichi Ihara (Inactive)]

Bruno,
Unfortunately, we couldn't get crashdump.. you need same jbd2 stack situation, right? if so, hope we can get it when the same probem happens sooner.
any another ideas we can test before decide to change data=writeback?

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

Ihara, do you think you can take an OSS crash-dump ?? Because event if "data=writeback" seems to be a good work-around candidate and works finally, we need to understand how we fall in such situation where the jbd2 thread finds dirty-pages to flush when it should not !!

[Johann Lombardi (Inactive)]

Ihara, it is safe to use data=writeback since lustre already pushes data to disk before committing, so you already have the ordering guarantee.

Bruno, the stack trace shows that the jdb2 thread in charge of commit is waiting for some dirty pages to be flushed, which should never happen on the OSS. The issue is that we wait for commit with the pages locked, so there is a deadlock between the service threads and the jbd2 thread. Therefore, we should try to understand how we can end up with dirty pages in the page cache.