[LU-5921] conf-sanity test_41c: unexpected concurent OST mounts result, rc=0 rc2=1

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Minor
• Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.8.0
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: Bruno Faccini (Inactive)
• Reporter: Maloo

Description

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

This issue relates to the following test suite run: https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/078fe42c-6b6b-11e4-b1b4-5254006e85c2.

The sub-test test_41c failed with the following error:

unexpected concurent OST mounts result, rc=0 rc2=1

Please provide additional information about the failure here.

Info required for matching: conf-sanity 41c

Issue Links

• is related to: LU-8168 conf-sanity test_41c: unexpected concurent MDT mounts result, rc=17 rc2=0
• is related to: LU-7442 conf-sanity test_41c: @@@@@@ FAIL: unexpected concurent MDT mounts rc=17 rc2=0
• is related to: LU-5299 osd_start() LBUG when doing parallel mount of the same target

Comments

[Gerrit Updater]

Oleg Drokin ([e-mail]) merged in patch http://review.whamcloud.com/17302/
Subject: LU-5921 tests: enhance server target mount race testing
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set:
Commit: 5023ca334069950ccece06db3c12104232b5ab71

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

I have pushed patch #17302, to better set a concurrent/racy situation for same server target mount, and also allow to handle all mount errors instead of only EALREADY.

[Gerrit Updater]

Faccini Bruno ([e-mail]) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/17302
Subject: LU-5921 tests: enhance server target mount race testing
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set: 1
Commit: ec9a588356c09d83e9cb3d9d385fb9ef200edf1e

[Andreas Dilger]

Sorry, I meant OBD_RACE() might be better than waiting in userspace. That depends on whether you actually want the two processes to race or just to have one in the middle of mounting when the second one starts.

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

Hello Andreas,
I am sorry but I am not completely sure about what you mean by "this would be better with OBD_FAIL_RACE() instead of having the test clear the fail_loc before the second mount" ? Do you think that I better have to use the "OBD_RACE(OBD_FAIL_TGT_CONN_RACE);" capability at the beginning of target_handle_connect(), instead to set/unset OBD_FAIL_TGT_DELAY_CONNECT to have 1st mount stall 10s and try to force a race?

OTOH, I may also change conf-sanity/test_41c to only check that only one of both concurrent mounts fails regardless of its return code ?

[Andreas Dilger]

Bruno, it isn't clear that this should be considered a test failure. I think any result where one mount succeeds and the other fails should be considered a PASS?

Also, it seems to me that this would be better with OBD_FAIL_RACE() instead of having the test clear the fail_loc before the second mount. Since the test is running in a VM that may be quite slow, this opens up the possibility of the first mount completing, and the second one just refuses to mount in mount.lustre because it sees the first filesystem has finished mounting.