[LU-5525] ASSERTION( new_lock->l_readers + new_lock->l_writers == 0 ) failed

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Duplicate
• Priority: Critical
• Labels: llnl
• Environment: MDS node, Lustre 2.4.2-14chaos, ZFS OBD
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: Bruno Faccini (Inactive)
• Reporter: Christopher Morrone (Inactive)

Description

After upgrading to lustre 2.4.2-14chaos (see github.com/chaos/lustre), we soon hit the following assertion on one of our MDS nodes:

mdt_handler.c:3652:mdt_intent_lock_replace()) ASSERTION( new_lock->l_readers + new_lock->l_writers == 0 ) failed

Perhaps most significantly, this tag of our lustre tree includes the patch entitled:

LU-4584 mdt: ensure orig lock is found in hash upon resend

James Simmons reported this assertion when he tested the LU-4584 patch, but the Bruno made the evaluation that the assertion was unrelated to the patch.

Whether it is related or not, we need to fix the problem.

Issue Links

• is related to: LU-5632 ldlm_lock_addref()) ASSERTION( lock != ((void *)0) )
• is related to: LU-4584 Lock revocation process fails consistently
• is related to: LU-3428 Fix 'uninitialized variables' errors

Comments

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

James, "crash" tool claims "WARNING: kernel version inconsistency between vmlinux and dumpfile" and gives up due to further errors ...
Are you sure that at the time of crash you were running with this "2.6.32-431.17.1.el6.wc" kernel version for which you provided the debuginfo RPMs ? BTW, strings out from vmcore and vmcore-dmesg.txt report "2.6.32-358.23.2.el6.atlas"...

[James A Simmons]

Sorry I forgot the debug.rpms. I just uploaded them to the same ftp spot. ORNL would really like to go to 2.5 ASAP.

Yes, I built b2_5 at commit a43e0e4ce4b57240540e8d35a8ba44e203c70ae1 with some additional patches. We tag our kernels to avoid our automated rpm update system from stomping on them. They basically are the RHEL Lustre patched kernels. We also build our own kernel rpms to enable certain things like timestamps in the printk.

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

Hello James, thanks for this crash-dump already! But I also need the corresponding vmlinux and Lustre modules to allow crash tool to run on it. By "the latest b2_5 branch with the LU-2827 patch", do you mean you used one of our recent Jenkins build to get this crash? If yes, can you point me to which one ? And if not, can you also xfer the 2x kernel-debuginfo[-common] RPMs and also the luste-modules (or the lustre-debuginfo) RPM ?
BTW, I checked the vmcore-dmesg.txt file, you provided with the crash-dump, and its content seems to indicate that you run with both a Kernel and Lustre distro you have builded locally, right?

[James A Simmons]

I hit this bug using the latest b2_5 branch with the LU-2827 patch. Good news for you is that I can share my crash dumps. A simple simul run on our Cray test bed produced this Oops. I uploaded the vmcore and dmesg to ftp.whamcloud.com/uploads/LU-5525.

[Christopher Morrone (Inactive)]

This is a not a machine for which we can provide logs or crash dumps. No, we don't know the details of the various workloads going on at the time.

The filesystem has 768 OSTs on 768 OSS nodes. Default stripe value of 1. Some users do use stripe counts at various widths, some over 700.

I don't know what your notes say, but I checked and we crashed the MDS fifteen times during the three days that we were running with the LU-4584 patch. We then rebooted the MDS onto Lustre version 2.4.2-14.1chaos (which does nothing but revert the LU-4584 patch), and we have not seen this ticket's assertion in over three days.

While not conclusive, the circumstantial evidence points strongly at the LU-4584 patch either introducing the bug or making it much easier to hit.

Here is the list of 2.4.2-14chaos to 2.4.2-14.1chaos changes:

$ git log --oneline 2.4.2-14chaos..2.4.2-14.1chaos
f28b8cc Revert "LU-4584 mdt: ensure orig lock is found in hash upon resend"

You can find those tags at github.com/chaos/lustre.

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

Hello Chris,

I checked my notes for LU-4584 and this LBUG occured without my patch being applied.

I suspect this will not be possible for you, but just in case. Did you ran with some debug levels enabled in Lustre trace at the time of these 3 crashes ? And if yes, could you extract+provide at least one of them ? Or better, could you provide a crash-dump ?

Also, and I know it is not an easy question but ..., do you have any idea about what was the work-load that may cause this ?

I am trying to setup a platform to reproduce in-house so any details about your configuration is of interest (number of MDSs/MDTs, DNE?, number of OSSs/OSTs, OSTs indexing, default striping, ...).

Thanks again and in advance for your help.

[Christopher Morrone (Inactive)]

We have hit this assertion 3 times in just over 24 hours on the MDS of our largest production filesystem. I reverted the patch for LU-4584 in the hope of getting us back into a reasonably operational state again. We should probably know in a day or two if the problem is gone.

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

Yes, I am investigating the long history around this issue ...

[Peter Jones]

Bruno

Can you please advise on this ticket?

Thanks

Peter

[Christopher Morrone (Inactive)]

Here is the backtrace for the thread that mdt01_006 thread that hit the assertion:

mdt_intent_lock_replace
mdt_intent_reint
mdt_intent_polucy
ldlm_lock_enqueue
ldlm_handle_enqueue0
mdt_enqueue
mdt_handle_common
mds_regular_handle
ptlrpc_server_handle_request
ptlrpc_main