On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Mike Marshall wrote:
> Still busted, exactly the same, I think. The doomed op gets a good
> return code from is_daemon_in_service in service_operation but
> gets EAGAIN from wait_for_matching_downcall... an edge case kind of
> problem.
>
> Here's the raw (well, slightly edited for readability) logs showing
> the doomed op and subsequent failed op that uses the bogus handle
> and fsid from the doomed op.
>
>
>
> Alloced OP (ffff880012898000: 10889 OP_CREATE)
> service_operation: orangefs_create op:ffff880012898000:
>
>
>
> wait_for_matching_downcall: operation purged (tag 10889, ffff880012898000, att 0
> service_operation: wait_for_matching_downcall returned -11 for ffff880012898000
> Interrupted: Removed op ffff880012898000 from htable_ops_in_progress
> tag 10889 (orangefs_create) -- operation to be retried (1 attempt)
> service_operation: orangefs_create op:ffff880012898000:
> service_operation:client core is NOT in service, ffff880012898000
>
>
>
> service_operation: wait_for_matching_downcall returned 0 for ffff880012898000
> service_operation orangefs_create returning: 0 for ffff880012898000
> orangefs_create: PPTOOLS1.PPA:
> handle:00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000: fsid:0:
> new_op:ffff880012898000: ret:0:
>
>
>
> Alloced OP (ffff880012888000: 10958 OP_GETATTR)
> service_operation: orangefs_inode_getattr op:ffff880012888000:
> service_operation: wait_for_matching_downcall returned 0 for ffff880012888000
> service_operation orangefs_inode_getattr returning: -22 for ffff880012888000
> Releasing OP (ffff880012888000: 10958
> orangefs_create: Failed to allocate inode for file :PPTOOLS1.PPA:
> Releasing OP (ffff880012898000: 10889
>
>
>
>
> What I'm testing with differs from what is at kernel.org#for-next by
> - diffs from Al's most recent email
> - 1 souped up gossip message
> - changed 0 to OP_VFS_STATE_UNKNOWN one place in service_operation
> - reinit_completion(&op->waitq) in orangefs_clean_up_interrupted_operation
>
>
>
Mike,
what error do you get from userspace (i.e. from dbench)?
open("./clients/client0/~dmtmp/EXCEL/5D7C0000", O_RDWR|O_CREAT, 0600) = -1 ENODEV (No such device)
An interesting note is that I can't reproduce at all
with only one dbench process. It seems there's not
enough load.
I don't see how the kernel could return ENODEV at all.
This may be coming from our client-core.
-- Martin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
