[LU-9887] sanity-lfsck test_9a: FAIL: (4) Got speed 952, expected less than 144

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Critical
• Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.10.6
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.11.0
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: nasf (Inactive)
• Reporter: Maloo

Description

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

This issue relates to the following test suite run: https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/742f02b4-837a-11e7-b90b-5254006e85c2.

The sub-test test_9a failed with the following error:

(4) Got speed 952, expected less than 144

This might be a dup of LU-8877, but those haven't been reported for quite a while.
Creating a new Jira ticket for recent instances. Will let somebody else decide if they are dups.

Info required for matching: sanity-lfsck 9a
Info required for matching: sanity-lfsck 9b

Issue Links

• duplicates: LU-9894 lfsck always prints that it started all types of lfsck
• is related to: LU-6174 do_div() silently truncates divisor to uint32_t
• is related to: LU-9295 sanity-lfsck tests 9a and 9b skipped due to uninitialized server version

Comments

[Gerrit Updater]

John L. Hammond ([e-mail]) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/29294/
Subject: LU-9887 lfsck: calculate LFSCK speed properly
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: b2_10
Current Patch Set:
Commit: 0f14db83ab0fe0b505e3eabb7b51619cd42e5155

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

still seeing fails on master after the landing of https://review.whamcloud.com/28588 and https://review.whamcloud.com/28617:
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/8ab76200-afbd-11e7-8d8d-5254006e85c2

[Gerrit Updater]

John L. Hammond ([e-mail]) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/29293/
Subject: LU-9887 tests: ignore error sanity-lfsck test 9a,b
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: b2_10
Current Patch Set:
Commit: 2efab9c82e806dc53b98fcb157aaed60af79a799

[Gerrit Updater]

Minh Diep ([e-mail]) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/29294
Subject: LU-9887 lfsck: calculate LFSCK speed properly
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: b2_10
Current Patch Set: 1
Commit: 8eb4db6c1125511d870cd848fd8cd5eba9e944eb

[Gerrit Updater]

Minh Diep ([e-mail]) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/29293
Subject: LU-9887 tests: ignore error sanity-lfsck test 9a,b
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: b2_10
Current Patch Set: 1
Commit: 917d9a4021fc0ccb911fbb2b0e261a781b91f2be

[Peter Jones]

Landed for 2.11

[Gerrit Updater]

Oleg Drokin ([e-mail]) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/28617/
Subject: LU-9887 lfsck: calculate LFSCK speed properly
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set:
Commit: cf800c062c8c6424c442509139297095f8a708db

[Gerrit Updater]

Oleg Drokin ([e-mail]) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/28588/
Subject: LU-9887 tests: ignore error sanity-lfsck test 9a,b
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set:
Commit: 6754b09335508ca4d977d10d1d05b5befd1a8aad

[nasf (Inactive)]

simmonsja, https://review.whamcloud.com/28617 is refreshed, the new version uses dir_u64(), but gets the result from the function return value. Please check. Thanks!

[James A Simmons]

True but if you want to do that you need to add a comment saying its okay to truncate the result. What will happen in the future is some one will look at the code and assume do_div() is wrong due to the truncate issue. So I ask you place a comment stating this. Personally I like to see things done is proper way i.e use a correct div64 function instead of reverting to do_div() but its not a hard requirement.

[nasf (Inactive)]

On the other hand, for LFSCK, the divisor is the run time with second unit. It is impossible that the LFSCK run time exceeds 32-bit seconds. So do_div() is enough for LFSCK.