Project

General

Profile

Actions
Copy link

Bug #9997

closed

test_client_pin case is failing

Added by Greg Farnum over 9 years ago. Updated over 9 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Urgent
Assignee:
Zheng Yan
Category:
-
Target version:
-
% Done:

0%

Source:
Q/A
Tags:
Backport:
Regression:
Severity:
3 - minor
Reviewed:
Affected Versions:
ceph-qa-suite:
Component(FS):
Labels (FS):
Pull request ID:
Crash signature (v1):
Crash signature (v2):

Description

http://qa-proxy.ceph.com/teuthology/teuthology-2014-11-02_23:04:01-fs-next-testing-basic-multi/583588/

RuntimeError: Timed out after 600 seconds waiting for 160 (currently 252)

Actions
Copy link
 #3

Updated by John Spray over 9 years ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress
Actions
Copy link
 #4

Updated by John Spray over 9 years ago

After much head scratching and log examination, this appears to be a kernel regression (assuming our behaviour was valid to begin with).

v3.17 works
v3.18-rc6 does not work

Investigation continues... recent changes to d_invalidate look interesting.

Actions
Copy link
 #5

Updated by Zheng Yan over 9 years ago

yes, I think it caused by the d_invalidate change. In 3.18-rc kernel, d_invalidate() unhash dentry regardless if the dentry is still busy. the change makes our tick that invalidates kernel cache not work. but I don't think it's a kernel regression.

Actions
Copy link
 #6

Updated by Zheng Yan over 9 years ago

For 3.18+ kernel, I think we can iterate the all dir inodes and invalidate dentry one by one.

Actions
Copy link
 #7

Updated by John Spray over 9 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Fix Under Review
  • Assignee changed from John Spray to Zheng Yan
Actions
Copy link
 #8

Updated by John Spray over 9 years ago

  • Status changed from Fix Under Review to Resolved
Actions
Copy link
 #9

Updated by Greg Farnum over 9 years ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Pending Backport

Can we get a giant backport for this, please?

Actions
Copy link
 #11

Updated by Zheng Yan over 9 years ago

The fix is buggy, we shouldn't backport it. we should use patches for #10277 instead

Actions
Copy link
 #12

Updated by Greg Farnum over 9 years ago

  • Status changed from Pending Backport to Resolved

Hum, I was thinking that we could backport the simple fix since most users will be on older kernels where it behaves properly anyway. But I suppose Giant is new enough that's not really a safe bet.

Actions
Copy link

Also available in: Atom PDF