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-3347 Lustre <p>This is from conf-sanity test test_32a. There is lots of other badness going on in conf-sanity and I am not sure how much THIS error occurs. </p> <p>It may be related to <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-2200" title="Test failure on test suite conf-sanity, subtest test_32a" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-2200"><del>LU-2200</del></a> Test failure on test suite conf-sanity, subtest test_32a : </p> <p>The test run: <a href="https://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/32b2ffc4-bd3c-11e2-9324-52540035b04c" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://maloo.whamcloud.com/test_sets/32b2ffc4-bd3c-11e2-9324-52540035b04c</a></p> <p>Highlight lbug:</p> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>21:39:35:Lustre: DEBUG MARKER: mount -t lustre -o loop,mgsnode=10.10.4.198@tcp /tmp/t32/ost /tmp/t32/mnt/ost 21:39:35:LDISKFS-fs (loop1): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. quota=off. Opts: 21:39:35:LustreError: 23362:0:(local_storage.c:872:local_oid_storage_init()) ASSERTION( (*los)-&gt;los_last_oid &gt;= first_oid ) failed: 0 &lt; 1 21:39:35:LustreError: 23362:0:(local_storage.c:872:local_oid_storage_init()) LBUG 21:39:35:Pid: 23362, comm: mount.lustre 21:39:35: 21:39:35:Call Trace: 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa0478895&gt;] libcfs_debug_dumpstack+0x55/0x80 [libcfs] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa0478e97&gt;] lbug_with_loc+0x47/0xb0 [libcfs] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa05ca646&gt;] local_oid_storage_init+0x426/0xe50 [obdclass] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa05a3660&gt;] llog_osd_setup+0xc0/0x360 [obdclass] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa05a0162&gt;] llog_setup+0x352/0x920 [obdclass] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa0d3508b&gt;] mgc_set_info_async+0x12eb/0x1970 [mgc] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa04892c1&gt;] ? libcfs_debug_msg+0x41/0x50 [libcfs] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa0607f70&gt;] server_mgc_set_fs+0x120/0x520 [obdclass] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa060e9a5&gt;] server_start_targets+0x85/0x19c0 [obdclass] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa0483d88&gt;] ? libcfs_log_return+0x28/0x40 [libcfs] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa05dfc40&gt;] ? lustre_start_mgc+0x4e0/0x1ee0 [obdclass] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa04892c1&gt;] ? libcfs_debug_msg+0x41/0x50 [libcfs] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa0610e8c&gt;] server_fill_super+0xbac/0x1660 [obdclass] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa05e1818&gt;] lustre_fill_super+0x1d8/0x530 [obdclass] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa05e1640&gt;] ? lustre_fill_super+0x0/0x530 [obdclass] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffff811842bf&gt;] get_sb_nodev+0x5f/0xa0 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffffa05d91b5&gt;] lustre_get_sb+0x25/0x30 [obdclass] 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffff811838fb&gt;] vfs_kern_mount+0x7b/0x1b0 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffff81183aa2&gt;] do_kern_mount+0x52/0x130 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffff811a3cf2&gt;] do_mount+0x2d2/0x8d0 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffff811a4380&gt;] sys_mount+0x90/0xe0 21:39:35: [&lt;ffffffff8100b072&gt;] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b </pre> </div></div> lbug encountered during normal review testing LU-3347

(local_storage.c:872:local_oid_storage_init()) ASSERTION( (*los)->los_last_oid >= first_oid ) failed: 0 < 1

Bug Critical Resolved Fixed Mikhail Pershin Keith Mannthey Wed, 15 May 2013 16:29:10 +0000 Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:46:25 +0000 Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:14:52 +0000 Lustre 2.5.0 0 4 <p>Mike,<br/> Could you please comment on this one?<br/> Thank you!</p> <p>Keith, if this is repeatable, could you please submit a quick patch to change the LASSERT() to LASSERTF() and print out the actual values in this condition? That would make debugging this much easier.</p> <p>This LASSERT() was just recently added in <a href="https://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-2886" title="create local files using local_storage library" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="LU-2886"><del>LU-2886</del></a> patch <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/6199" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/6199</a>, so it might represent a regression that was just introduced by that patch.</p> <p>Keith, also, if you file a bug related to a failure in Maloo, please "Associate" the bug with the failed test, and search all of the other recent failures of the same test (e.g. in the past 2 weeks) and Associate the same bug with those as well. This is easily done in Maloo with <tt>Results-&gt;Search-&gt;Name=conf-sanity,Status=TIMEOUT,ResultsWithin=2weeks</tt> and then looking to see which ones failed in test_32a and verifying those have the same ASSERT failure in the MDS console log.</p> <p>I am not sure if will reproduce or not. It is a pretty large patch that triggered it but there are alot of timeout errors with this conf-sanity and this test_32a. </p> <p><a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/5512" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/5512</a> is the patch set: The patch seems like it could have caused it but with so many timeouts and this test I opened the LU to track the issue. </p> <p>Maloo tells me in the last 4 weeks (master review ldisks) there have been 3 in the last 24 hours and non before that... </p> <p>2 were review-dne and this one. So far it has been a one shot issue with a large patch set on Ldiskfs/Master. </p> <p>I can submit the Assert change if you want it in Master. </p> <p>I "associated" the single issue. With review-dne I didn't see a way but the error messages where the same for the 2 I see. </p> <p>Keith, please rebase that patch again, I've fixed this issue in <a href="http://review.whamcloud.com/5049" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">http://review.whamcloud.com/5049</a> which is top of patch set</p> <p>I did not hit the issue again when I did a retest. </p> Related LU-2059 LU-3316 Development Rank 1|hzvr2f: Rank (Obsolete) 8276 Severity