On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Michael Vorburger <vorbur...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Jozef Bacigál <jozef.baci...@pantheon.tech > > wrote: > >> HI Michael, >> >> are you able to test it on this patch [1] ? Or it needed to be merged ? >> > Jozef - thanks a lot! I'll discuss with Daniel to understand how easy/hard > it would be to get a carbon RPM with this, and let you know ASAP. > Jozef, FYI we've just been able to get a new full ODL dist build + RPM incl. this (unmerge) change, and will re-run this through our scale test environment ASAP, and let you know how it looks. > Anil - perhaps we'll best wait for you and Jozef to agree on something you > would be willing to merge before we test (given the current -1 on it), > that's probably the test to avoid any confusion and not test and in-flight > Gerrit which may still change? Lemme know when you think this can go in > from your side... tx. > [1] https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/62674/ >> >> >> Jozef >> ------------------------------ >> *Od:* Michael Vorburger <vorbur...@redhat.com> >> *Odoslané:* streda, 6. septembra 2017 15:16:18 >> *Komu:* Jozef Bacigál >> *Kópia:* Robert Varga; Tomáš Slušný; Abhijit Kumbhare; >> openflowplugin-...@lists.opendaylight.org; controller-dev@lists.opendayli >> ght.org; mdsal-...@lists.opendaylight.org >> *Predmet:* Re: [mdsal-dev] [openflowplugin-dev] Fwd: Bug 9038 - >> IllegalStateException: Attempted to close chain with outstanding >> transaction PingPongTransaction at org.opendaylight.openflowplugi >> n.impl.device.TransactionChainManager.createTxChain >> >> Hi Jozef, >> >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Jozef Bacigál < >> jozef.baci...@pantheon.tech> wrote: >> >>> Hi Michael, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems to be the same issue over and over. What I mean it is always >>>> issue with transaction chain. Do we need so many bugs opened for it? Let’s >>>> keep it simple as possible because we are lost in this many bugs and it may >>>> lead to confusion :) >>>> >>> >>> FYI I've just attached a brand new trace:transactions output obtained >>> via the new Bug 9060 tooling to https://bugs.opendaylight.org/ >>> show_bug.cgi?id=9096 which others may find interesting - and will >>> shortly be opening even more bugs for what's in there, for other projects, >>> to create even more general confusion! :) >>> >>> But yes please do feel absolutely free to just go ahead and close >>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9101 as a duplicate of >>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9038 in openflowplugin, >>> if there is no point / no new additional information of value to you in it, >>> and you are sure that it's about the same thing as 9038 and what you're >>> doing there will fix this - not a problem at all. Likewise >>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9071 - if you have one >>> fix for all of these 3, please just close and duplicate as you see fit, and >>> have 1 (9038) instead of 3 (9038 + 9071 & 9101). >>> >>> But the https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9034 is the one >>> that just says "we have an OOM problem, due to TransactionChain(s!) not >>> being closed... somewhere", and whether 9038 (=9071/9101) really is the fix >>> for that, or indeed is one of more required fixes like that required in >>> other projects, is something we IMHO should confirm (once we have your fix >>> - thank you!), so I would like to keep that one open (in controller), even >>> once you close 9038/9101 (in openflowplugin) ... like for example, based on >>> what I've just attached go Bug 9096, I really have no way of knowing >>> whether your openflowplugin bug 9038/9101/9071 or the ovsdb bug 9072 or >>> 9073 are the real culprit - or am I missing some way by which we could tell? >>> >>> As for the other "so many bugs" I've opened today, and perhaps more to >>> come, they are for other issues - for WriteOnlyTransaction or >>> ReadOnlyTransaction but not TransactionChain, and in other projects. My >>> understanding is that those also lead to memory leaks (but different from >>> Bug 9034, understood). If that is wrong and a waste of time, then please >>> someone shout STOP! ;-) >>> >>> >>>> I already working on patch for all unclosed and/or illegalState >>>> txChains in all OFP. I will let you know when it is ready to test it. >>>> >>> >>> Wonderful - thank you so much! >>> >> >> Without wanting to stress, could we ask how this is coming along? We'd >> love to re-test anything you have. >> >> >>> Thanks >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jozef >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Michael Vorburger [mailto:vorbur...@redhat.com] >>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 4, 2017 4:44 PM >>>> *To:* Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk>; Tomáš Slušný >>>> <tomas.slu...@pantheon.tech>; Jozef Bacigál >>>> <jozef.baci...@pantheon.tech> >>>> *Cc:* Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitk...@gmail.com>; >>>> openflowplugin-...@lists.opendaylight.org; >>>> controller-dev@lists.opendaylight.org; mdsal-...@lists.opendaylight.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [mdsal-dev] [openflowplugin-dev] Fwd: Bug 9038 - >>>> IllegalStateException: Attempted to close chain with outstanding >>>> transaction PingPongTransaction at org.opendaylight.openflowplugi >>>> n.impl.device.TransactionChainManager.createTxChain >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 24/08/17 09:39, Tomáš Slušný wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hello Michael, >>>> > >>>> > so, according to stack trace, it looks like OpenFlowPlugin transaction >>>> > chain manager got notification that transaction chain failed, and what >>>> > we are doing then are that we create new transaction chain and close >>>> the >>>> > failed transaction chain. But it looks like in time we are closing the >>>> > failed transaction chain, there is still ping pong transaction open >>>> > (what, according to logs, is probably the one who triggered the >>>> failure >>>> > of chain and also the recreation of the chain), so I am not sure if >>>> this >>>> > is really bug in OpenFlowPlugin. Adding controller and mdsal to cc. >>>> >>>> OFP has a currently-open transaction when from the failed transaction >>>> chain (i.e. between allocate and submit/cancel) when it is calling >>>> close(). This points towards missing synchronization between the >>>> callback code and the code that is using the chain. >>>> >>>> https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9101 may interest you as >>>> well in this context? >>>> >>>> Bye, >>>> Robert >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mdsal-dev mailing list >>>> mdsal-...@lists.opendaylight.org >>>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/mdsal-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ controller-dev mailing list controller-dev@lists.opendaylight.org https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/controller-dev
