[LU-9966] sanity test_411: fail to trigger a memory allocation error

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Minor
• Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.12.0
• Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.12.0
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: Yang Sheng
• 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/32b0aa4c-9502-11e7-ba84-5254006e85c2.

The sub-test test_411 failed with the following error:

fail to trigger a memory allocation error

test_411 is very new. has been failing since 9/1
some (all?) of the instances of FAIL have been seen on sles12sp2/sles12sp3

more:
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/8c6725ca-8f6c-11e7-b5c2-5254006e85c2
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/0a6acf7c-8f8f-11e7-b67f-5254006e85c2

Info required for matching: sanity 411

Issue Links

• is related to: LU-8435 LBUG (osc_cache.c:1290:osc_completion()) ASSERTION( equi(page->cp_state == CPS_PAGEIN, cmd == OBD_BRW_READ) )
• is related to: LU-10366 sanity test 410 fails with 'no inode match'

Comments

[Chris Horn]

Just a note: This issue is also seen with Lustre 2.11 on SLES15 RC4

[Gerrit Updater]

Yang Sheng ([e-mail]) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/32293
Subject: LU-9966 tests: sanity-411 check LBUG direct
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set: 1
Commit: eb5551388e81b16704c6655f6a2d0c469b9d5262

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

> I think test_411 just intends to verify not hit on LBUG. So we can avoid to check dd whether success or not.
> Does it necessary?

YangSheng, yes we may do that, but we could also try to find a way to set the conditions that may cause dd to fail.

[Bob Glossman (Inactive)]

another on master:
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/a0416dd0-2f8a-11e8-b6a0-52540065bddc

[Yang Sheng]

Hi, Bruno,

I think test_411 just intends to verify not hit on LBUG. So we can avoid to check dd whether success or not. Does it necessary?

Thanks,
YangSheng

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

+1 on master review for LU-10680 at https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/9b8d6f46-150e-11e8-a10a-52540065bddc

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

Looks like some allocation errors did occur anyway during these failed test sessions :

[ 6308.394164] Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: == sanity test 411: Slab allocation error with cgroup does not LBUG ================================== 22:34:17 (1517438057)
[ 6311.637464] SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1 (gfp=0x8050)
[ 6311.638238]   cache: kmalloc-512(0:osc_slab_alloc), object size: 512, buffer size: 512, default order: 1, min order: 0
[ 6311.638238]   node 0: slabs: 13, objs: 208, free: 0
[ 6311.670203] SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1 (gfp=0x0)
[ 6311.670957]   cache: kmalloc-192(0:osc_slab_alloc), object size: 192, buffer size: 192, default order: 0, min order: 0
[ 6311.670957]   node 0: slabs: 1, objs: 21, free: 0
[ 6360.020975] Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: /usr/sbin/lctl mark  sanity test_411: @@@@@@ FAIL: fail to trigger a memory allocation error 
[ 6360.203970] Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: sanity test_411: @@@@@@ FAIL: fail to trigger a memory allocation error

But not causing "dd" command to fail as it is expected in sanity/test_411:

== sanity test 411: Slab allocation error with cgroup does not LBUG ================================== 22:34:17 (1517438057)
100+0 records in
100+0 records out
104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 3.13092 s, 33.5 MB/s
204800+0 records in
204800+0 records out
104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 48.1542 s, 2.2 MB/s
 sanity test_411: @@@@@@ FAIL: fail to trigger a memory allocation error 
  Trace dump:
  = /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/test-framework.sh:5718:error()
  = /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/sanity.sh:17667:test_411()
  = /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/test-framework.sh:5994:run_one()
  = /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/test-framework.sh:6033:run_one_logged()
  = /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/test-framework.sh:5880:run_test()
  = /usr/lib64/lustre/tests/sanity.sh:17673:main()
Dumping lctl log to /home/autotest/autotest/logs/test_logs/2018-01-31/lustre-reviews-el7-x86_64--review-ldiskfs--1_8_1__54107___60bc072b-48d1-4e5e-bb15-747752d7c9b7/sanity.test_411.*.1517438110.log
CMD: trevis-10vm10,trevis-10vm11,trevis-10vm12,trevis-10vm9.trevis.hpdd.intel.com /usr/sbin/lctl dk > /home/autotest/autotest/logs/test_logs/2018-01-31/lustre-reviews-el7-x86_64--review-ldiskfs--1_8_1__54107___60bc072b-48d1-4e5e-bb15-747752d7c9b7/sanity.test_411.debug_log.\$(hostname -s).1517438110.log;
         dmesg > /home/autotest/autotest/logs/test_logs/2018-01-31/lustre-reviews-el7-x86_64--review-ldiskfs--1_8_1__54107___60bc072b-48d1-4e5e-bb15-747752d7c9b7/sanity.test_411.dmesg.\$(hostname -s).1517438110.log
Resetting fail_loc on all nodes...CMD: trevis-10vm10,trevis-10vm11,trevis-10vm12,trevis-10vm9.trevis.hpdd.intel.com lctl set_param -n fail_loc=0 	    fail_val=0 2>/dev/null
done.

Since as per my LU-8435 analysis, kmem/memory cgroup features is known to be buggy with 3.x kernels (even if CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM is configured by default in 3.x kernel shipped in CentOS/RH distros) and only safe to be used starting with 4.x kernels, why don't we simply skip sanity/test_411 for now, or at least add an other skip-test checking for Kernel 4.x?

[Jian Yu]

Two failure instances occurred on master branch yesterday:
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/76978322-06b6-11e8-a7cd-52540065bddc
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/455d1326-06d9-11e8-bd00-52540065bddc

[Joseph Gmitter (Inactive)]

Seeing this failure on the flr branch:
https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_sets/93f8d4c2-ce65-11e7-9c63-52540065bddc

[Peter Jones]

Landed for 2.11

[Gerrit Updater]

Oleg Drokin ([e-mail]) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/28974/
Subject: LU-9966 test: add a skip test to test_411
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set:
Commit: f6b0e358f304b006dd24524503bb16d649c5499d