You've got two jobs never getting locks, 2 dead on Java linker issues (which probably never worked; they aren't any kind of release blocker), and one OSD crash. The crash is 2016-08-25 09:21:45.616945 7fa22623a700 -1 os/filestore/FileStore.cc: In function 'void FileStore::_do_transaction(ObjectStore::Transaction&, uint64_t, int, ThreadPool::TPHandle*)' thread 7fa22623a700 time 2016-08-25 09:21:45.612229 os/filestore/FileStore.cc: 2912: FAILED assert(0 == "unexpected error") That most often is an fs/disk issue of some kind, but the kernel logs are sadly empty so I can't guarantee it. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > The run completed at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2016-08-25_06:39:08-fs-jewel-backports-distro-basic-smithi/ with no valgrind error but a few other failures. Note that it is based on the jewel-backports branch which contains a few more backports in addition to https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10847 and I'm not sure what to blame yet. I'll look into it tomorrow unless you beat me to it :-) > > Cheers > > On 24/08/2016 23:03, Gregory Farnum wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 24/08/2016 22:46, Gregory Farnum wrote: >>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Hi John, >>>>>> >>>>>> The next jewel release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/jewel passed the fs suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16344#note-30 except for three valgrind failures). Do you think the jewel branch is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. CC'ing Greg because John is on vacation, in case a decision is to be made before he returns. >>>>> >>>>> Ugh, I went to check these valgrind failures and they're a failed >>>>> mutex assert on shutdown. Let me dig into what's happening. :( >>>>> -Greg >>>> >>>> Hmm, we seem to have some badly-colliding backports. If you look at >>>> commit ac449472df2978123192d5f22247d8b8bc5efb28 and MDSRank.cc line >>>> 242, you'll see it does mds_lock.Unlock() twice in quick succession. >>>> :( >>>> >>>> One of them came in from 7c2eab19, and the other from 1d3a8168. I >>>> think maybe the patches got reordered in their backport order or >>>> something. >>>> >>>> Patrick, can you give https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10847 a quick >>>> review? Loic, can you then run the failed tests against a backport >>>> branch which includes that patch? >>> >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10847 has been pushed as part of the jewel-backports integration branch right now and I'll schedule a fs run as soon as it finishes building. Thanks for the quick fix ! >> >> Sure. Assuming that works out everything else looked good to me. :) >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > > -- > Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
