[Gluster-devel] Release 6.1: Expected tagging on April 10th
Atin Mukherjee
amukherj at redhat.com
Wed Apr 17 02:34:13 UTC 2019
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:33 AM Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
pkarampu at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:27 PM Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 9:19 PM Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 7:24 PM Shyam Ranganathan <srangana at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Status: Tagging pending
>>>>
>>>> Waiting on patches:
>>>> (Kotresh/Atin) - glusterd: fix loading ctime in client graph logic
>>>> https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/22579
>>>
>>>
>>> The regression doesn't pass for the mainline patch. I believe master is
>>> broken now. With latest master sdfs-sanity.t always fail. We either need to
>>> fix it or mark it as bad test.
>>>
>>
>> commit 3883887427a7f2dc458a9773e05f7c8ce8e62301 (HEAD)
>> Author: Pranith Kumar K <pkarampu at redhat.com>
>> Date: Mon Apr 1 11:14:56 2019 +0530
>>
>> features/locks: error-out {inode,entry}lk fops with all-zero lk-owner
>>
>> Problem:
>> Sometimes we find that developers forget to assign lk-owner for an
>> inodelk/entrylk/lk before writing code to wind these fops. locks
>> xlator at the moment allows this operation. This leads to multiple
>> threads in the same client being able to get locks on the inode
>> because lk-owner is same and transport is same. So isolation
>> with locks can't be achieved.
>>
>> Fix:
>> Disallow locks with lk-owner zero.
>>
>> fixes bz#1624701
>> Change-Id: I1c816280cffd150ebb392e3dcd4d21007cdd767f
>> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar K <pkarampu at redhat.com>
>>
>> With the above commit sdfs-sanity.t started failing. But when I looked at
>> the last regression vote at
>> https://build.gluster.org/job/centos7-regression/5568/consoleFull I saw
>> it voted back positive but the bell rang when I saw the overall regression
>> took less than 2 hours and when I opened the regression link I saw the test
>> actually failed but still this job voted back +1 at gerrit.
>>
>> *Deepshika* - *This is a bad CI bug we have now and have to be addressed
>> at earliest. Please take a look at
>> https://build.gluster.org/job/centos7-regression/5568/consoleFull
>> <https://build.gluster.org/job/centos7-regression/5568/consoleFull> and
>> investigate why the regression vote wasn't negative.*
>>
>> Pranith - I request you to investigate on the sdfs-sanity.t failure
>> because of this patch.
>>
>
> sdfs is supposed to serialize entry fops by doing entrylk, but all the
> locks are being done with all-zero lk-owner. In essence sdfs doesn't
> achieve its goal of mutual exclusion when conflicting operations are
> executed by same client because two locks on same entry with same
> all-zero-owner will get locks. The patch which lead to sdfs-sanity.t
> failure treats inodelk/entrylk/lk fops with all-zero lk-owner as Invalid
> request to prevent these kinds of bugs. So it exposed the bug in sdfs. I
> sent a fix for sdfs @ https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/22582
>
Since this patch hasn't passed the regression and now that I see
tests/bugs/replicate/bug-1386188-sbrain-fav-child.t hanging and timing out
in the latest nightly regression runs because of the above commit (tested
locally and confirm) I still request that we first revert this commit, get
master back to stable and then put back the required fixes.
>
>> *@Maintainers - Please open up every regression link to see the actual
>> status of the job and don't blindly trust on the +1 vote back at gerrit
>> till this is addressed.*
>>
>> As per the policy, I'm going to revert this commit, watch out for the
>> patch. I request this to be directly pushed with out waiting for the
>> regression vote as we had done before in such breakage. Amar/Shyam - I
>> believe you have this permission?
>>
>
>>
>>> root at a5f81bd447c2:/home/glusterfs# prove -vf tests/basic/sdfs-sanity.t
>>> tests/basic/sdfs-sanity.t ..
>>> 1..7
>>> ok 1, LINENUM:8
>>> ok 2, LINENUM:9
>>> ok 3, LINENUM:11
>>> ok 4, LINENUM:12
>>> ok 5, LINENUM:13
>>> ok 6, LINENUM:16
>>> mkdir: cannot create directory ‘/mnt/glusterfs/1/coverage’: Invalid
>>> argument
>>> stat: cannot stat '/mnt/glusterfs/1/coverage/dir': Invalid argument
>>> tests/basic/rpc-coverage.sh: line 61: test: ==: unary operator expected
>>> not ok 7 , LINENUM:20
>>> FAILED COMMAND: tests/basic/rpc-coverage.sh /mnt/glusterfs/1
>>> Failed 1/7 subtests
>>>
>>> Test Summary Report
>>> -------------------
>>> tests/basic/sdfs-sanity.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 7 Failed: 1)
>>> Failed test: 7
>>> Files=1, Tests=7, 14 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 0.58 cusr
>>> 0.67 csys = 1.27 CPU)
>>> Result: FAIL
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Following patches will not be taken in if CentOS regression does not
>>>> pass by tomorrow morning Eastern TZ,
>>>> (Pranith/KingLongMee) - cluster-syncop: avoid duplicate unlock of
>>>> inodelk/entrylk
>>>> https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/22385
>>>> (Aravinda) - geo-rep: IPv6 support
>>>> https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/22488
>>>> (Aravinda) - geo-rep: fix integer config validation
>>>> https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/22489
>>>>
>>>> Tracker bug status:
>>>> (Ravi) - Bug 1693155 - Excessive AFR messages from gluster showing in
>>>> RHGSWA.
>>>> All patches are merged, but none of the patches adds the "Fixes"
>>>> keyword, assume this is an oversight and that the bug is fixed in this
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> (Atin) - Bug 1698131 - multiple glusterfsd processes being launched for
>>>> the same brick, causing transport endpoint not connected
>>>> No work has occurred post logs upload to bug, restart of bircks and
>>>> possibly glusterd is the existing workaround when the bug is hit. Moving
>>>> this out of the tracker for 6.1.
>>>>
>>>> (Xavi) - Bug 1699917 - I/O error on writes to a disperse volume when
>>>> replace-brick is executed
>>>> Very recent bug (15th April), does not seem to have any critical data
>>>> corruption or service availability issues, planning on not waiting for
>>>> the fix in 6.1
>>>>
>>>> - Shyam
>>>> On 4/6/19 4:38 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>>>> > Hi Mohit,
>>>> >
>>>> > https://review.gluster.org/22495 should get into 6.1 as it’s a
>>>> > regression. Can you please attach the respective bug to the tracker
>>>> Ravi
>>>> > pointed out?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 12:00, Ravishankar N <ravishankar at redhat.com
>>>> > <mailto:ravishankar at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Tracker bug is
>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692394, in
>>>> > case anyone wants to add blocker bugs.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 05/04/19 8:03 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote:
>>>> > > Hi,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Expected tagging date for release-6.1 is on April, 10th, 2019.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Please ensure required patches are backported and also are
>>>> passing
>>>> > > regressions and are appropriately reviewed for easy merging and
>>>> > tagging
>>>> > > on the date.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thanks,
>>>> > > Shyam
>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > Gluster-devel mailing list
>>>> > > Gluster-devel at gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-devel at gluster.org>
>>>> > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Gluster-devel mailing list
>>>> > Gluster-devel at gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-devel at gluster.org>
>>>> > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > - Atin (atinm)
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Gluster-devel mailing list
>>>> > Gluster-devel at gluster.org
>>>> > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>>> >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>>>> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
>>>> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Pranith
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20190417/bea0c8de/attachment.html>
More information about the Gluster-devel
mailing list