mon: Valgrind: mon (Leak_DefinitelyLost, Leak_IndirectlyLost)
#4 Updated by Patrick Donnelly 9 months ago
- Category set to Correctness/Safety
- Status changed from New to Verified
- Priority changed from Normal to Urgent
- Target version set to v14.0.0
- Start date deleted (
- ceph-qa-suite multimds added
Edit: different issue.
#6 Updated by Greg Farnum 9 months ago
Still not seeing anything in RADOS runs AFAIK, but I did notice there might be some disparity in coverage....
13:33:31] <gregsfortytwo> batrick: also it still looks to me like we run the same valgrind config on fs and rados suites and those errors aren't popping up in rados runs
[13:34:08] <gregsfortytwo> ...although, hrm, the fs tests may stress the cluster more than our rados verify suite does
[13:34:10] <gregsfortytwo> interesting
[13:34:51] <gregsfortytwo> joshd: sage: so we only run valgrind against a mon_recovery, rados_api_tests, and rados_cls_all workloads
[13:35:24] <gregsfortytwo> there's also the singleton-flat runs but those are tagged expect_valgrind_errors so I'm not sure if they'd flag anything at us
[13:36:32] <gregsfortytwo> we thrash it a bit but nothing that would cause eg the client to reconnect
[13:37:28] <joshd> no ms error injection?
[13:38:12] <gregsfortytwo> oh, hrm, yeah msgr-failures/few.yaml is present
#9 Updated by Patrick Donnelly 9 months ago
- Status changed from Verified to Need More Info
Neha Ojha wrote:
Patrick, which set of logs have the (Leak_DefinitelyLost, Leak_IndirectlyLost) errors?
Old logs are deleted and the most recent one is actually a different issue: #36040.
I guess we'll see if this comes back. I'll change this to Need More Info for now.