Hi Anders, Reviewed and tested the patch in 4.3.x. Ack.
Neel. On Friday 13 September 2013 06:48 PM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote: > Summary: IMM: New active IMMD sends redundant discard-node for payloads [#563] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): (#563) > 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): > --------------------------------------------- > > changeset 213e6a6690e786364bce49242085f5151f720b36 > Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:29:42 +0200 > > IMM: New active IMMD sends redundant discard-node for payloads [#563] > > Standby IMMD records IMMND down events for payloads including the epoch > it > occurred in. The recorded payload down events are discarded by standby > IMMD > when a new IMMND with same node-id is introduced. At failover, the new > active IMMD will generate a discard-node event for any recorded payload > down > events that are still in the same epoch. Normally these discard-node > events > will be redundant. In rare cases they plug the hole that this ticket > reported. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immd/immd_cb.h | 10 ++++++++- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immd/immd_evt.c | 1 + > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immd/immd_proc.c | 104 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immd/immd_proc.h | 2 + > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immd/immd_sbevt.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 5 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > The patch sent out for review is applies cleanly on OpenSAF 4.2 and 4.3. > It does not apply cleanly on default(4.4). I am sending the 4.2/4.3 patch > because I see that one as more urgent to get tested. The default(4.4) patch > can be provided on request. > > Very difficult to reproduce the problem. > It was done by a "hacked cluster restart" where one SC was actually > not restarted. THus the active SC and all payloads where ordered down > at roughly the same time. Omitted discard node messages will still > be reflected in the remaining new active SC and will get synced to > restarted payloads, unless there is generated a new discard node for > the departed payloads. > > System testing is needed to ensure that this patch does not > introduce any problem. In particular, the main risk to watch for > is the opposite problem of that which is fixed. The fixed problem is > that in rare cases, the discard node message is never generated for > some payloads that departed closely in time with the old active SC. > > The opposite problem would be if a redundant discard node message > for a payload is generated late enough to arrive after that payload > has rejoined. This should not happen due to two safe-guards. > > First any node that rejoins must first introduce itself. Such an > intro message arriving to IMMD standby causes it to remove its > record of the departed payload. > > Second, when standby becomes new active, it will dispense of all > such recorded payload-down records and only generate a redundant > discard-node message if the cluster is still in the same epoch as > whhen the down event was recorded. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > After fail-over where many payloads go down in close time proximity > to the old active SC, there shall NOT be resources left "hanging" > due to omitted discard-node message for some payloads. By "resources" > is here ment allocated implemeners, admin-owners, active non critical ccbs. > Note also that "go down" can either mean processor down or just IMMND > process down. > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Neel. > We will also try to rerun the test here that triggered the issue. > > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99! 1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
