On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:28 AM Xavi Hernandez <jahernan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 7:25 PM Xavi Hernandez <jahernan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 4:01 PM Atin Mukherjee <amukherj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:And now for last 15 days:./tests/bitrot/bug-1373520.t 18 ==> Fixed through https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/22481/, I don't see this failing in brick mux post 5th April
./tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t 17 ==> happens only in brick mux, needs analysis.I've identified the problem here, but not the cause yet. There's a stale inodelk acquired by a process that is already dead, which causes inodelk requests from self-heal and other processes to block.The reason why it seemed to block in random places is that all commands are executed with the working directory pointing to a gluster directory which needs healing after the initial tests. Because of the stale inodelk, when any application tries to open a file in the working directory, it's blocked.I'll investigate what causes this.I think I've found the problem. This is a fragment of the brick log that includes script steps, connections and disconnections of brick 0, and lock requests to the problematic lock:[2019-04-11 08:22:20.381398]:++++++++++ G_LOG:tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t: TEST: 66 kill_brick patchy jahernan /d/backends/patchy2 ++++++++++[2019-04-11 08:22:22.532646]:++++++++++ G_LOG:tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t: TEST: 67 kill_brick patchy jahernan /d/backends/patchy3 ++++++++++[2019-04-11 08:22:23.709655] I [MSGID: 115029] [server-handshake.c:550:server_setvolume] 0-patchy-server: accepted client from CTX_ID:1c2952c2-e90f-4631-8712-170b8c05aa6e-GRAPH_ID:0-PID:28900-HOST:jahernan-PC_NAME:patchy-client-1-RECON_NO:-2 (version: 7dev) with subvol /d/backends/patchy1[2019-04-11 08:22:23.792204] I [common.c:234:pl_trace_in] 8-patchy-locks: [REQUEST] Locker = {Pid=29710, lk-owner=68580998b47f0000, Client=CTX_ID:1c2952c2-e90f-4631-8712-170b8c05aa6e-GRAPH_ID:0-PID:28900-HOST:jahernan-PC_NAME:patchy-client-1-RECON_NO:-2, Frame=18676} Lockee = {gfid=35743386-b7c2-41c9-aafd-6b13de216704, fd=(nil), path=/test} Lock = {lock=INODELK, cmd=SETLK, type=WRITE, domain: patchy-disperse-0, start=0, len=0, pid=0}[2019-04-11 08:22:23.792299] I [common.c:285:pl_trace_out] 8-patchy-locks: [GRANTED] Locker = {Pid=29710, lk-owner=68580998b47f0000, Client=CTX_ID:1c2952c2-e90f-4631-8712-170b8c05aa6e-GRAPH_ID:0-PID:28900-HOST:jahernan-PC_NAME:patchy-client-1-RECON_NO:-2, Frame=18676} Lockee = {gfid=35743386-b7c2-41c9-aafd-6b13de216704, fd=(nil), path=/test} Lock = {lock=INODELK, cmd=SETLK, type=WRITE, domain: patchy-disperse-0, start=0, len=0, pid=0}[2019-04-11 08:22:24.628478]:++++++++++ G_LOG:tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t: TEST: 68 5 online_brick_count ++++++++++[2019-04-11 08:22:26.097092]:++++++++++ G_LOG:tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t: TEST: 70 rm -f 0.o 10.o 11.o 12.o 13.o 14.o 15.o 16.o 17.o 18.o 19.o 1.o 2.o 3.o 4.o 5.o 6.o 7.o 8.o 9.o ++++++++++[2019-04-11 08:22:26.333740]:++++++++++ G_LOG:tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t: TEST: 71 ec_test_make ++++++++++[2019-04-11 08:22:27.718963] I [MSGID: 115029] [server-handshake.c:550:server_setvolume] 0-patchy-server: accepted client from CTX_ID:1c2952c2-e90f-4631-8712-170b8c05aa6e-GRAPH_ID:0-PID:28900-HOST:jahernan-PC_NAME:patchy-client-1-RECON_NO:-3 (version: 7dev) with subvol /d/backends/patchy1[2019-04-11 08:22:27.801416] I [common.c:234:pl_trace_in] 8-patchy-locks: [REQUEST] Locker = {Pid=29885, lk-owner=68580998b47f0000, Client=CTX_ID:1c2952c2-e90f-4631-8712-170b8c05aa6e-GRAPH_ID:0-PID:28900-HOST:jahernan-PC_NAME:patchy-client-1-RECON_NO:-3, Frame=19233} Lockee = {gfid=35743386-b7c2-41c9-aafd-6b13de216704, fd=(nil), path=/test} Lock = {lock=INODELK, cmd=SETLK, type=UNLOCK, domain: patchy-disperse-0, start=0, len=0, pid=0}[2019-04-11 08:22:27.801434] E [inodelk.c:513:__inode_unlock_lock] 8-patchy-locks: Matching lock not found for unlock 0-9223372036854775807, by 68580998b47f0000 on 0x7f0ed0029190[2019-04-11 08:22:27.801446] I [common.c:285:pl_trace_out] 8-patchy-locks: [Invalid argument] Locker = {Pid=29885, lk-owner=68580998b47f0000, Client=CTX_ID:1c2952c2-e90f-4631-8712-170b8c05aa6e-GRAPH_ID:0-PID:28900-HOST:jahernan-PC_NAME:patchy-client-1-RECON_NO:-3, Frame=19233} Lockee = {gfid=35743386-b7c2-41c9-aafd-6b13de216704, fd=(nil), path=/test} Lock = {lock=INODELK, cmd=SETLK, type=UNLOCK, domain: patchy-disperse-0, start=0, len=0, pid=0}This is a fragment of the client log:[2019-04-11 08:22:20.381398]:++++++++++ G_LOG:tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t: TEST: 66 kill_brick patchy jahernan /d/backends/patchy2 ++++++++++[2019-04-11 08:22:20.675938] I [MSGID: 114018] [client.c:2333:client_rpc_notify] 0-patchy-client-1: disconnected from patchy-client-1. Client process will keep trying to connect to glusterd until brick's port is available[2019-04-11 08:22:21.674772] W [MSGID: 122035] [ec-common.c:654:ec_child_select] 0-patchy-disperse-0: Executing operation with some subvolumes unavailable. (6). FOP : 'INODELK' failed on '/test' with gfid 35743386-b7c2-41c9-aafd-6b13de216704[2019-04-11 08:22:22.532646]:++++++++++ G_LOG:tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t: TEST: 67 kill_brick patchy jahernan /d/backends/patchy3 ++++++++++[2019-04-11 08:22:23.691171] W [MSGID: 122035] [ec-common.c:654:ec_child_select] 0-patchy-disperse-0: Executing operation with some subvolumes unavailable. (8). FOP : 'INODELK' failed on '/test' with gfid 35743386-b7c2-41c9-aafd-6b13de216704[2019-04-11 08:22:23.710420] I [MSGID: 114046] [client-handshake.c:1106:client_setvolume_cbk] 0-patchy-client-1: Connected to patchy-client-1, attached to remote volume '/d/backends/patchy1'.[2019-04-11 08:22:23.791635] W [MSGID: 122035] [ec-common.c:654:ec_child_select] 0-patchy-disperse-0: Executing operation with some subvolumes unavailable. (C). FOP : 'INODELK' failed on '/test' with gfid 35743386-b7c2-41c9-aafd-6b13de216704[2019-04-11 08:22:24.460529] I [MSGID: 114018] [client.c:2333:client_rpc_notify] 0-patchy-client-1: disconnected from patchy-client-1. Client process will keep trying to connect to glusterd until brick's port is available[2019-04-11 08:22:24.628478]:++++++++++ G_LOG:tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t: TEST: 68 5 online_brick_count ++++++++++[2019-04-11 08:22:26.097092]:++++++++++ G_LOG:tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t: TEST: 70 rm -f 0.o 10.o 11.o 12.o 13.o 14.o 15.o 16.o 17.o 18.o 19.o 1.o 2.o 3.o 4.o 5.o 6.o 7.o 8.o 9.o ++++++++++[2019-04-11 08:22:26.333740]:++++++++++ G_LOG:tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t: TEST: 71 ec_test_make ++++++++++[2019-04-11 08:22:27.719299] I [MSGID: 114046] [client-handshake.c:1106:client_setvolume_cbk] 0-patchy-client-1: Connected to patchy-client-1, attached to remote volume '/d/backends/patchy1'.[2019-04-11 08:22:27.840342] W [MSGID: 122035] [ec-common.c:654:ec_child_select] 0-patchy-disperse-0: Executing operation with some subvolumes unavailable. (C). FOP : 'INODELK' failed on '/test' with gfid 35743386-b7c2-41c9-aafd-6b13de216704The problem happens for two things:1. Brick 0 gets disconnected randomly (apparently), but the server side is not aware of these disconnections. This causes that at 08:22:24.460529, the client has already sent a successful INODELK request to brick 0. At this point the connection is broken on the client side, but server side doesn't get any notification, so it doesn't clear the locks.2. When client reconnects at 08:22:27.719299, a new connection is created, and the servers does see this new connection (it creates a new client_t structure). Then the client sends the unlock request, which fails on brick 0 because locks xlators checks if the client is the same by comparing the pointers, but they are different because of the reconnection. So the lock is not unlocked and remains there, blocking all future inodelk requests.The first problem is why the client gets disconnected and the server doesn't get any notification. The script is stopping bricks 2 and 3 when this happens. Brick 0 shouldn't fail here. It seems related to theThe second problem is that when we receive a new connection from a client we already consider connected, we don't cleanup the old connection, which should take care of the stale locks.The third problem is that locks xlator is checking if the client is the same by comparing pointers of client_t structs instead of comparing client_uid field, which remains the same.Adding +Raghavendra Gowdappa, +Pranith Kumar Karampuri, +Krutika Dhananjay, +Shyam Ranganathan and +Amar Tumballi to help me identify why this is happening and what's the best way to solve it.
BTW, while testing this I also hit another problem. I think it's not related, but just in case...
When DEBUG or TRACE log levels are used sometimes (2 out of some tens) I get an assertion failed when releasing memory because apparently it's trying to release more memory than it was allocated (based on gluster's memory accounting). So memory accounting says that there remain 14 bytes allocated of "gf_common_mt_strdup" type but it's trying to free an object that has size 30. At first sight it doesn't seem memory corruption. I'll investigate it further.
XaviXavi_______________________________________________./tests/basic/uss.t 15 ==> happens in both brick mux and non brick mux runs, test just simply times out. Needs urgent analysis.
./tests/basic/ec/ec-fix-openfd.t 13 ==> Fixed through https://review.gluster.org/#/c/22508/ , patch merged today.
./tests/basic/volfile-sanity.t 8 ==> Some race, though this succeeds in second attempt every time.
There're plenty more with 5 instances of failure from many tests. We need all maintainers/owners to look through these failures and fix them, we certainly don't want to get into a stage where master is unstable and we have to lock down the merges till all these failures are resolved. So please help.(Please note fstat stats show up the retries as failures too which in a way is right)On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:27 PM Atin Mukherjee <amukherj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:[1] captures the test failures report since last 30 days and we'd need volunteers/component owners to see why the number of failures are so high against few tests.
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
