Uploaded image for project: 'Lustre'
  1. Lustre
  2. LU-6730

conf-sanity test_45: FAIL: manual_umount_client failed

Details

    • 3
    • 9223372036854775807

    Description

      conf-sanity test 45 failed as follows:

      manual umount lustre on /mnt/lustre....
      CMD: onyx-35vm6.onyx.hpdd.intel.com umount -d --force /mnt/lustre
      umount2: Device or resource busy
      umount: /mnt/lustre: device is busy.
              (In some cases useful info about processes that use
               the device is found by lsof(8) or fuser(1))
      umount2: Device or resource busy
       conf-sanity test_45: @@@@@@ FAIL: manual_umount_client failed 
      df: `/mnt/lustre': Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown
      df: no file systems processed
      

      Maloo report: https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/af77cd58-fa4f-11e4-828f-5254006e85c2

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            [LU-6730] conf-sanity test_45: FAIL: manual_umount_client failed
            yujian Jian Yu added a comment -

            Jian Yu (jian.yu@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/15702
            Subject: LU-6730 tests: fix fail_loc code in conf-sanity test 45

            The above patch didn't fix the unmounting busy issue. The real fix is in LU-1882. The changes in the above patch will be incorporated into the one for that ticket.

            yujian Jian Yu added a comment - Jian Yu (jian.yu@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/15702 Subject: LU-6730 tests: fix fail_loc code in conf-sanity test 45 The above patch didn't fix the unmounting busy issue. The real fix is in LU-1882 . The changes in the above patch will be incorporated into the one for that ticket.

            Another instance found for interop - 2.7.1 Server/EL6.7 Client, tag 2.7.90.
            https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/f371534e-d573-11e5-bc47-5254006e85c2

            standan Saurabh Tandan (Inactive) added a comment - Another instance found for interop - 2.7.1 Server/EL6.7 Client, tag 2.7.90. https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sessions/f371534e-d573-11e5-bc47-5254006e85c2

            Server: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62
            Client: Master, Build# 3266, Tag 2.7.64
            https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/9bff0100-a04a-11e5-a33d-5254006e85c2

            standan Saurabh Tandan (Inactive) added a comment - Server: 2.5.5, b2_5_fe/62 Client: Master, Build# 3266, Tag 2.7.64 https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/9bff0100-a04a-11e5-a33d-5254006e85c2

            Jian Yu (jian.yu@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/15702
            Subject: LU-6730 tests: fix fail_loc code in conf-sanity test 45
            Project: fs/lustre-release
            Branch: master
            Current Patch Set: 1
            Commit: b7efc2f16c59ab508c5365e5c781862524255980

            gerrit Gerrit Updater added a comment - Jian Yu (jian.yu@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/15702 Subject: LU-6730 tests: fix fail_loc code in conf-sanity test 45 Project: fs/lustre-release Branch: master Current Patch Set: 1 Commit: b7efc2f16c59ab508c5365e5c781862524255980

            I see the following code in ptlrpc_check_set() but according to the client console logs the fail_loc is being hit repeatedly:

                                    /* Turn fail_loc off to prevent it from looping forever. */
                                    if (OBD_FAIL_CHECK(OBD_FAIL_PTLRPC_LONG_REPL_UNLINK)) {
                                            OBD_FAIL_CHECK_ORSET(OBD_FAIL_PTLRPC_LONG_REPL_UNLINK,
                                                                 OBD_FAIL_ONCE);
                                    }
            

            Should the test be using 0x80000503 (FAIL_ONCE) so that it eventually finishes?

            adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment - I see the following code in ptlrpc_check_set() but according to the client console logs the fail_loc is being hit repeatedly: /* Turn fail_loc off to prevent it from looping forever. */ if (OBD_FAIL_CHECK(OBD_FAIL_PTLRPC_LONG_REPL_UNLINK)) { OBD_FAIL_CHECK_ORSET(OBD_FAIL_PTLRPC_LONG_REPL_UNLINK, OBD_FAIL_ONCE); } Should the test be using 0x80000503 (FAIL_ONCE) so that it eventually finishes?

            Note: if there is a patch for this ticket, the fail_loc OBD_FAIL_PTLRPC_LONG_UNLINK has been renamed to OBD_FAIL_PTLRPC_LONG_REPL_UNLINK and should be fixed in the test.

            adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment - Note: if there is a patch for this ticket, the fail_loc OBD_FAIL_PTLRPC_LONG_UNLINK has been renamed to OBD_FAIL_PTLRPC_LONG_REPL_UNLINK and should be fixed in the test.

            People

              yujian Jian Yu
              yujian Jian Yu
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              10 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: