> On Dec 30, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 30, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 03:40:58PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> Last week I updated my test server from v4.14 to v4.15-rc4, and began to >>> observe intermittent failures in the git regression suite on NFSv4.1. >> >> I haven't run that before. Should I just >> >> mount -overs=4.1 server:/fs /mnt/ >> cd /mnt/ >> git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git >> cd git >> make test >> >> ? > > You'll need to install SVN and CVS on your client as well. > The failures seem to occur only in the SVN/CVS related > tests. > > >>> I >>> was able to reproduce these failures with NFSv4.1 on both TCP and RDMA, >>> yet there has not been a reproduction with NFSv3 or NFSv4.0. >>> >>> The server hardware is a single-socket 4-core system with 32GB of RAM. >>> The export is a tmpfs. Networking is 56Gb InfiniBand (or IPoIB). >>> >>> The git regression suite reports individual test failures in the SVN >>> and CVS tests. On occasion, the client mount point freezes, requiring >>> that the client be rebooted in order to unstick the mount. >>> >>> Just before Christmas, I bisected the problem to: >> >> Thanks for the report! I'll make some time for this next week. What's >> your client? Oops, I didn't answer this question. The client is v4.15-rc4. >> I guess one start might be to see if the reproducer can be >> simplified e.g. by running just one of the tests from the suite. > > The failures are intermittent, and occur in a different test > each time. You have to wait for the 9000-series scripts, which > test SVN/CVS repo operations. To speed up time-to-failure, use > "make -jN test" where N is more than a few. > > My client and server both have multiple real cores. I'm > thinking it's the server that matters here (possibly a race > condition is introduced by the below commit?). > > >> --b. >> >>> >>> commit 659aefb68eca28ba9aa482a9fc64de107332e256 >>> Author: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: Fri Nov 3 08:00:13 2017 -0400 >>> >>> nfsd: Ensure we don't recognise lock stateids after freeing them >>> >>> In order to deal with lookup races, nfsd4_free_lock_stateid() needs >>> to be able to signal to other stateful functions that the lock stateid >>> is no longer valid. Right now, nfsd_lock() will check whether or not an >>> existing stateid is still hashed, but only in the "new lock" path. >>> >>> To ensure the stateid invalidation is also recognised by the "existing lock" >>> path, and also by a second call to nfsd4_free_lock_stateid() itself, we can >>> change the type to NFS4_CLOSED_STID under the stp->st_mutex. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> >>> Since we're already at v4.15-rc5 I thought it would be best to break the >>> holiday moratorium instead of waiting another week to report this. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Chuck Lever >>> >>> > > -- > Chuck Lever > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Chuck Lever -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
