Uploaded image for project: 'Lustre'
  1. Lustre
  2. LU-4690

sanity test_4: Expect error removing in-use dir /mnt/lustre/remote_dir

Details

    • Bug
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Blocker
    • Lustre 2.6.0, Lustre 2.5.2
    • Lustre 2.6.0, Lustre 2.5.1, Lustre 2.5.2
    • 3
    • 12888

    Description

      This issue was created by maloo for Bob Glossman <bob.glossman@intel.com>

      This issue relates to the following test suite run: http://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/0dd7df32-a0b5-11e3-9f3a-52540035b04c.

      The sub-test test_4 failed with the following error:

      Expect error removing in-use dir /mnt/lustre/remote_dir

      There have been many of these lately. maloo reports:

      Failure Rate: 31.00% of last 100 executions [all branches]

      A search shows failures like this started happening 2/26, none earlier.
      Suspect something landed just recently causing these failures.

      Info required for matching: sanity 4

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            [LU-4690] sanity test_4: Expect error removing in-use dir /mnt/lustre/remote_dir

            Thank you, Di. I'll try to compose a patch according to your comment and track the fix in LU-5296.

            niu Niu Yawei (Inactive) added a comment - Thank you, Di. I'll try to compose a patch according to your comment and track the fix in LU-5296 .
            di.wang Di Wang added a comment -

            I think dt_object_exists() will always return false for osp object, then any chown/chgrp will never be applied to OST objects. Any thoughts?

            Hmm, we actually separate the remote and exist flag for MD OSP object, but for OST object, this check might have problem. The easiest fix might be add S_ISDIR(dt->do_lu.lo_header->loh_attr) check here?

            di.wang Di Wang added a comment - I think dt_object_exists() will always return false for osp object, then any chown/chgrp will never be applied to OST objects. Any thoughts? Hmm, we actually separate the remote and exist flag for MD OSP object, but for OST object, this check might have problem. The easiest fix might be add S_ISDIR(dt->do_lu.lo_header->loh_attr) check here?

            Looks the patch caused serious problem with quota:

            In lod_attr_set():

                    for (i = 0; i < lo->ldo_stripenr; i++) {
                            LASSERT(lo->ldo_stripe[i]);
            +               if (dt_object_exists(lo->ldo_stripe[i]) == 0)
            +                       continue;
                            rc = dt_attr_set(env, lo->ldo_stripe[i], attr, handle, capa);
            

            I think dt_object_exists() will always return false for osp object, then any chown/chgrp will never be applied to OST objects. Any thoughts?

            Because test_34 of s-q was disabled for LU-4515, this problem wasn't found by maloo test, I've submit a patch to re-enable test_34 in LU-4515.

            niu Niu Yawei (Inactive) added a comment - Looks the patch caused serious problem with quota: In lod_attr_set(): for (i = 0; i < lo->ldo_stripenr; i++) { LASSERT(lo->ldo_stripe[i]); + if (dt_object_exists(lo->ldo_stripe[i]) == 0) + continue ; rc = dt_attr_set(env, lo->ldo_stripe[i], attr, handle, capa); I think dt_object_exists() will always return false for osp object, then any chown/chgrp will never be applied to OST objects. Any thoughts? Because test_34 of s-q was disabled for LU-4515 , this problem wasn't found by maloo test, I've submit a patch to re-enable test_34 in LU-4515 .

            Patches landed to Master.

            jlevi Jodi Levi (Inactive) added a comment - Patches landed to Master.
            di.wang Di Wang added a comment -

            There is another patch http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/10261/ to cleanup the 9511 a bit. Probably close the ticket after 10261 is landed?

            di.wang Di Wang added a comment - There is another patch http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/10261/ to cleanup the 9511 a bit. Probably close the ticket after 10261 is landed?

            Does this test need to be re-enabled now that Change, 9511 has landed? Or can this ticket be closed?

            jlevi Jodi Levi (Inactive) added a comment - Does this test need to be re-enabled now that Change, 9511 has landed? Or can this ticket be closed?

            I have retriggered Change, 9511 test.

            jlevi Jodi Levi (Inactive) added a comment - I have retriggered Change, 9511 test.
            di.wang Di Wang added a comment - http://review.whamcloud.com/9511
            di.wang Di Wang added a comment - Disable LU-4690 temporarily. http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/9440/
            di.wang Di Wang added a comment -

            Hmm, right now we will check whether the object is empty during getattr. But it is missing for striped dir. And also current empty check for remote directory is kind of jacky, given that we already have remote object iteration from LFSCK. I will check what I can do here. And in the mean time, I would suggest to disable the test.

            di.wang Di Wang added a comment - Hmm, right now we will check whether the object is empty during getattr. But it is missing for striped dir. And also current empty check for remote directory is kind of jacky, given that we already have remote object iteration from LFSCK. I will check what I can do here. And in the mean time, I would suggest to disable the test.

            People

              di.wang Di Wang
              maloo Maloo
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              11 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: