Project

General

Profile

Bug #49949

octopus : librbd qos assert m_io_throttled failed,appears coredump

Added by David Lee almost 2 years ago. Updated almost 2 years ago.

Status:
Duplicate
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
% Done:

0%

Source:
Tags:
Backport:
nautilus
Regression:
No
Severity:
3 - minor
Reviewed:
Affected Versions:
ceph-qa-suite:
Pull request ID:
Crash signature (v1):
Crash signature (v2):

Description

The ceph's version is octopus or nautilus,i set image's qos about iops and bps. When I write and read a image,sometimes the librbd client coredump ,as:

/mnt/ljw/ceph/src/librbd/io/ImageRequestWQ.cc: In function 'void librbd::io::ImageRequestWQ<ImageCtxT>::handle_throttle_ready(int, librbd::io::ImageDispatchSpec<ImageCtxT>*, uint64_t) [with ImageCtxT = librbd::ImageCtx; uint64_t = long unsigned int]' thread 7fd0b2ffd700 time 2021-03-16 15:10:12.123430
/mnt/ljw/ceph/src/librbd/io/ImageRequestWQ.cc: 662: FAILED ceph_assert(m_io_throttled.load() > 0)
ceph version 14.2.8-4-g8c4b291 (8c4b2913a0581f0cd6e9b18ce9d3d689ddac3a25) nautilus (stable)
1: (ceph::__ceph_assert_fail(char const*, char const*, int, char const*)+0x14a) [0x7fd0e9210325]
2: (()+0x2534ed) [0x7fd0e92104ed]
3: (()+0x212681) [0x7fd0f2d91681]
4: (()+0xc64ec) [0x7fd0f2c454ec]
5: (()+0xab4d9) [0x7fd0f2c2a4d9]
6: (TokenBucketThrottle::add_tokens()+0xdc) [0x7fd0e92dabac]
7: (TokenBucketThrottle::schedule_timer()+0xb3) [0x7fd0e92dacc3]
8: (FunctionContext::finish(int)+0x2c) [0x55ca17593e2c]
9: (Context::complete(int)+0x9) [0x55ca17521b59]
10: (SafeTimer::timer_thread()+0x180) [0x7fd0e92e1a10]
11: (SafeTimerThread::entry()+0xd) [0x7fd0e92e327d]
12: (()+0x7ea5) [0x7fd0e791eea5]
13: (clone()+0x6d) [0x7fd0e5fa58dd]

History

#1 Updated by Kefu Chai almost 2 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Fix Under Review
  • Pull request ID set to 40354

#2 Updated by Nathan Cutler almost 2 years ago

  • Backport set to nautilus

#3 Updated by Mykola Golub almost 2 years ago

@David According to the backtrace you observed it for 14.2.8. And we had a fix for the same assertion failure (#47371, which I think you aware of) targeting 14.2.10. Why do you think that the fix will not be enough? Are you able to reproduce the issue with 14.2.10?

#4 Updated by Jason Dillaman almost 2 years ago

  • Status changed from Fix Under Review to Duplicate

Issue was resolved via #47371

Also available in: Atom PDF