[LU-1331] changelogs: RNMTO record not always after RNMFRM Created: 17/Apr/12  Updated: 11/Jul/13  Resolved: 24/Jan/13

Status: Resolved
Project: Lustre
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Lustre 2.0.0, Lustre 2.1.0
Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.3.0, Lustre 2.1.5

Type: Bug Priority: Minor
Reporter: Thomas LEIBOVICI - CEA (Inactive) Assignee: Lai Siyao
Resolution: Fixed Votes: 0
Labels: None

Issue Links:
Duplicate
is duplicated by LU-2866 Interop 2.1.4<->2.4 failure on test s... Resolved
Related
is related to LU-1458 lustre-rsync-test test_2b: old lustre... Resolved
Severity: 3
Rank (Obsolete): 4560

 Description   

In Lustre MDT changelog, rename operations are splitted in 2 lines CL_RENAME (displayed as RNMFM) and CL_EXT (displayed as RNMTO).
I found some case where those 2 records are not consecutive in the changelog: other operations are inserted between them.

example:
14989521 08RNMFM 03:09:52.275492602 2012.04.14 0x0 t=[0x20000b8d3:0xaae6:0x0] p=[0x20000b7ba:0x4b4c:0x0] .adcread.q6TIXm
14989522 14SATTR 03:09:52.275492602 2012.04.14 0x14 t=[0x20000b7bb:0x1c1e:0x0]
14989523 09RNMTO 03:09:52.275492602 2012.04.14 0x0 t=[0:0x0:0x0] p=[0x20000b7ba:0x4b4c:0x0] adcread

Looking at lustre_rsync code, it seems CL_RENAME and CL_EXT are expected to be consecutive.
So there are 2 options:

  • lustre_rsync does a bad asumption about that
    or
  • there is a locking or transaction issue when generating CL rename records which allows another operation to be logged in between

Given that CL_EXT is an extra info related to CL_RENAME, it would be easier if they are together in the log...

 Comments   
Comment by Peter Jones [ 17/Apr/12 ]

Lai

Could you please look into this one?

Thanks

Peter

Comment by Lai Siyao [ 18/Apr/12 ]

Yes, the two rename logs should be written atomically, instead of introducing new lock which may hurt parallel operation performance, it's better to add llog support to write multiple records in one blow. This will change quite a number of interfaces, I'll commit the fix later.

Comment by Lai Siyao [ 19/Apr/12 ]

review is on http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,2577, Thomas, could you help verify it?

Comment by Peter Jones [ 04/Jun/12 ]

Thomas

When do you expect to be able to test whether this fix works for you>

Peter

Comment by Lai Siyao [ 10/Sep/12 ]

Patch landed.

Comment by Zhenyu Xu [ 13/Dec/12 ]

b2_1 patch port tracking at http://review.whamcloud.com/3835

Generated at Sat Feb 10 01:15:42 UTC 2024 using Jira 9.4.14#940014-sha1:734e6822bbf0d45eff9af51f82432957f73aa32c.