Hi Anders,
Reviewed and tested the patch(Not able to reproduce the problem)
ACK.
minor comment:
In the patch 2 while logging include ccb ID also, for more clarification:
LOG_NO("Ccb not in correct state (%u) for Apply ignoring request", ccb->mState);
Thanks,
Neel.
On Friday 09 August 2013 07:11 PM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote:
> Summary: IMM: CcbApply retry logic made fevs safe [#535]
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 535
> Peer Reviewer(s): Neel
> Pull request to:
> Affected branch(es): 4.2, 4.3, default(4.4)
> Development branch:
>
> --------------------------------
> Impacted area Impact y/n
> --------------------------------
> Docs n
> Build system n
> RPM/packaging n
> Configuration files n
> Startup scripts n
> SAF services y
> OpenSAF services n
> Core libraries n
> Samples n
> Tests n
> Other n
>
>
> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
> ---------------------------------------------
> Sorry for the previous botched review request.
>
> Note that the THIRD patch is only for 4.3 and default/4.4
> but NOT for 4.2.
>
> changeset b4dac755b75231c4e79bf0375ee8b93163a693e4
> Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:42:01 +0200
>
> IMM: CcbApply retry logic made fevs safe [#535]
>
> The function ImmModel::immNotPbeWritable() is made time insensitive.
> Root
> cause of the problem was that this function depended on a timeout in
> waiting
> on ccbs in critical, but the threshold for deciding on this timeout was
> not
> fevs safe. That is the timeout could be flagged on some nodes but not
> others, at the same fevs event i.e. the ccb-apply. The function instead
> counts the *number* of ccbs that are in critical i.e. waiting only on
> reply
> from PBE.
>
> changeset ea7cad2f1de4cbc3811e5592c98d42cd5e7731e8
> Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 09:27:57 +0200
>
> IMM: Ignore spurious/redundant ccb-apply from client [#535]
>
> A spurious and redundant ccb-apply generated by a faulty code elsewhere
> shall be ignored by the immnd server. Bugs in the imma library or new
> bugs
> introduced in the immnd server in the future should never be able to
> cause
> such a serious error as an inconsistent commit. The problem here was
> that
> the arrival of the second apply reaching the ccb already in critical at
> some
> processor(s) caused the ccb to get *aborted* in imm-ram while being in
> critical. That should never be allowed to happen. A ccb in critical is
> waiting on the commit decision from PBE and PBE alone. Patch also fixes
> a
> potential source of redundant apply in imma_om_api.c potentially caused
> by
> mutithreaded applications (incorrect usage of handle).
>
> changeset 835508b5f0917710219948b9b79da9096ebdf5c1
> Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 09:56:53 +0200
>
> IMM: Correction to ccb handling in immnd_fevs_local_checks() [#535]
>
> Patch only for 4.3 and default(4.4). NOT for 4.2 branch
>
> The logic in immnd_fevs_local_checks() in immnd_evt.c is corrected for
> CCB
> related messages to use immNotPbeWritable and not immNotWritable() as
> the
> precheck. The former is unnecessarily strict since the intention is to
> allow
> ongoing ccbs a period of grace to complete before sync starts, but not
> allow
> new ccb-id's to be generated. The logic here also did not recognize the
> special encoding of TRY_AGAIN needed towards the library for CcbApply.
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> ------------------
> osaf/libs/agents/saf/imma/imma_om_api.c | 9 +++++++++
> osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 34
> ++++++++++++++++++----------------
> osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----
> 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -----------------
> Very difficult to reproduce.
> Requires heavy ccb traffic and PBE backlog.
> Test applicaiton must have a retry loop arround ccbApply.
> Perform immnd sync regularly, for example by killing an immnd.
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --------------------------
> Watch for any immnd crashes.
> They should of course not happen.
> See ticket #535 for details of the symptoms.
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -------------------------
> Ack from Neel or someone from Oracle.
>
>
> Arch Built Started Linux distro
> -------------------------------------------
> mips n n
> mips64 n n
> x86 n n
> x86_64 n n
> powerpc n n
> powerpc64 n n
>
>
> Reviewer Checklist:
> -------------------
> [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
>
>
> Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
>
> ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
> that need proper data filled in.
>
> ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
>
> ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
>
> ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
>
> ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
>
> ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
>
> ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
> (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
>
> ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
> Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
>
> ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
>
> ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
> like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
>
> ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
> cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
>
> ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
> too much content into a single commit.
>
> ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
>
> ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
> Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
>
> ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
> commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
>
> ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
> of what has changed between each re-send.
>
> ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
> comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
>
> ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)
>
> ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
> the threaded patch review.
>
> ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
> for in-service upgradability test.
>
> ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
> do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and
AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights,
analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management.
Visit us today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
