https://jira.whamcloud.com This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 9.4.14 940014 05-12-2023 https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-2799 Lustre <p>I see the following message on the console of one of our Sequoia login nodes:</p> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>2013-02-12 15:26:17 Lustre: ldlm_cbd: This service may have more threads (192) than the given soft limit (128) </pre> </div></div> <p>Is this troubling? What's the net effect of this?</p> LU-2799

ldlm_cbd: This service may have more threads (192) than the given soft limit (128)

Bug Minor Resolved Fixed Nathaniel Clark Prakash Surya sequoia shh Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:49:03 +0000 Mon, 6 May 2013 23:05:00 +0000 Mon, 6 May 2013 23:05:00 +0000 Lustre 2.4.0 Lustre 2.4.0 0 5 <p>Nathaniel</p> <p>Could you please look into this one?</p> <p>Thanks</p> <p>Peter</p> <p>The message is just informational. It will be printed if you specified a number of threads larger than 128 via ptlrpc's ldlm_num_threads module parameter, or if the number of cores is large. See lustre/include/lustre_net.h:250 "example 3" states:</p> <blockquote> <p>On 64-core machine with 8 partitions we will need LDLM_NTHRS_BASE(24)<br/> threads for each partition to keep service healthy, so total threads<br/> number should be 24 * 8 = 192.</p></blockquote> <p>This is not harmful nor should it be worrisome. </p> <p>Thanks. It should really be removed in that case. If an administrator can safely ignore the message, it should not make it to the console.</p> <p>Unless somebody has a convincing reason why the message should stay, I'm reopening this ticket in the hopes that it is removed.</p> <p>Liang, any reason this message should be kept? Would it be better to limit the number of threads?</p> <p>Prakash, how many sockets/cores are on this login node?</p> <p>48 on this node:</p> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep proc | wc -l 48 </pre> </div></div> <p>Andreas, Liang,<br/> Should the message be changed to a CWARN instead. If there's an upper limit (even if it's soft) being passed, I would think, it should be logged.</p> <p>Prakash, Sorry about closing the bug prematurely.</p> <p>I'm more inclined to just quiet the message entirely, i.e. CDEBUG(), since there isn't anything the sysadmin can or should do about it.</p> <p>I guess at some point we need to look at whether there should be one set of threads running on each of the cores, or if one set of threads per socket is enough?</p> <p>Patch to make the message a CDEBUG:<br/> <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/5447" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/5447</a></p> <p>Patch has landed</p> <p>Thanks!</p> Development Rank 1|hzvj0f: Rank (Obsolete) 6776 Severity