[LU-4765] Failure on test suite sanity test_39l: atime is not updated

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Duplicate
• Priority: Minor
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.6.0, Lustre 2.9.0, Lustre 2.10.0, Lustre 2.11.0
• Environment: server: lustre-master build # 1937; client: SLES11 SP3
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: Bob Glossman (Inactive)
• Reporter: Maloo

Description

This issue was created by maloo for sarah <[e-mail]>

This issue relates to the following test suite run: http://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/5b796592-aa08-11e3-b4b1-52540035b04c.

The sub-test test_39l failed with the following error:

atime is not updated from future: 1426094124, 1394558125<atime<1394558125

== sanity test 39l: directory atime update =========================================================== 10:15:24 (1394558124)
CMD: shadow-8vm12 lctl get_param -n mdd.*MDT0000*.atime_diff
 sanity test_39l: @@@@@@ FAIL: atime is not updated from future: 1426094124, 1394558125<atime<1394558125 

Issue Links

• is related to: LU-14019 sanity test_39l: @@@@@@ FAIL: atime is not updated
• is related to: LU-1783 sanity test_39l failed: atime is not updated

Comments

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

currently not reproducible in our 2.6 builds anymore.
klibc? do you mean glibc? as far as I know the relevant #include files are part of glibc-devel. I believe current version of glibc-devel in sles11sp3 is 2.11.3, so if you have 1.<anything> you are seriously out of date.

Are you rolling your own builds? Again, as far as I know you should not be having problems if you just install and use our prebuilt rpms.

[Mark Mansk]

We're seeing this failure as well for 2.6. Not sure if/when we'll be updating our sles11sp3. Our current klibc is at 1.5.18.

Any way to workaround this besides comment out the test?

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

https://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/a9add412-d0ac-11e3-b9d4-52540035b04c shows test 39l now passing. The only remaining failures in sanity,sh on sles11sp3 clients are known bugs LU-4713 and LU-4341.

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

test only patch to verify TEI-2052 changes
http://review.whamcloud.com/10156

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

Following a suspicion that mount options on SP3 were out of wack I took a close look at some #include files currently on our sles11sp3 builder nodes. I discovered that in fact the #include files there were seriously out of date. In particular in mount.h on the builder node MS_RDONLY is #defined but MS_STRICTATIME isn't. I'm pretty sure this causes the mount.lustre built in our sles11sp3 artifacts to not have the special override code making MS_STRICTATIME the default in all mounts. This would explain why the 39l is failing in autotest runs, but not in my manual local runs where mount.lustre is built with more up to date tools and #includes.

I will file a TEI ticket requesting the environment on SP3 builders be updated. Fairly certain that will make this problem go away.

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

seeing a lot of these in autotest test runs with sles11sp3 clients. have been able to reproduce this bug manually, but only if I explicitly mount a client with the -o relatime option. as far as I can tell this option isn't typically used, mount.lustre sets MS_STRICTATIME by default. Is there something in autotest that is forcing the relatime option in client mounts? I haven't found anything in logs that would indicate that is happening.

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

another:
https://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/63de2e74-cf07-11e3-a250-52540035b04c

[Andreas Dilger]

This may relate to LU-1783 which was also a problem on newer kernels with atime updates from the future. Yang Sheng had made a patch for upstream, but it wasn't accepted for a variety of minor reasons. It should probably be refreshed and tried again.

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

seems to be something wrong with the client/server combo being run here. the server Centos rpms are from a recent build, lustre-master #1937, but the sles11sp3 client rpms appear to be much older. Is this a version interop run of some sort? If not why aren't the client and server rpms from the same build?