Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DAOS-12829 cart: Fix epi ASSERTs when untracking #11645

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 9, 2023

Conversation

liw
Copy link
Contributor

@liw liw commented Mar 8, 2023

Commit 53d66d7 might have introduced the following "epi != NULL" assertion failure in crt_context_req_untrack.

#0  raise () from /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
#1  abort () from /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
#2  __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
#3  __assert_fail () from /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
#4  crt_context_req_untrack (rpc_priv=rpc_priv@entry=0x55a254b83150)
    at src/cart/crt_context.c:1358
        crt_ctx = 0x55a25465f500
        epi = 0x0
        submit_list = {next = 0x0, prev = 0x4}
        tmp_rpc = <optimized out>
        rc = <optimized out>
        __func__ = "crt_context_req_untrack"
        __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ = "crt_context_req_untrack"
#5  crt_hg_req_send_cb (hg_cbinfo=<optimized out>) at
    src/cart/crt_hg.c:1287
        rpc_pub = <optimized out>
        rpc_priv = <optimized out>
        hg_ret = HG_SUCCESS
        rc = 0
        __func__ = "crt_hg_req_send_cb"
        __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ = "crt_hg_req_send_cb"
        __rc = <optimized out>

The RPC might be an outgoing URI_LOOKUP request, which we don't track. Hence its crp_epi field was NULL as expected. Commit 53d66d7 should have asserted "epi != NULL" after making sure that the RPC is not an URI_LOOKUP request. This patch does that and removes a few useless lines from crt_context_req_untrack_internal.

Test-tag: pr dynamic_server_pool OSAOfflineExtend NvmePoolExtend

Required-githooks: true

Before requesting gatekeeper:

  • Two review approvals and any prior change requests have been resolved.
  • Testing is complete and all tests passed or there is a reason documented in the PR why it should be force landed and forced-landing tag is set.
  • Features: (or Test-tag*) commit pragma was used or there is a reason documented that there are no appropriate tags for this PR.
  • Commit messages follows the guidelines outlined here.
  • Any tests skipped by the ticket being addressed have been run and passed in the PR.

Gatekeeper:

  • You are the appropriate gatekeeper to be landing the patch.
  • The PR has 2 reviews by people familiar with the code, including appropriate watchers.
  • Githooks were used. If not, request that user install them and check copyright dates.
  • Checkpatch issues are resolved. Pay particular attention to ones that will show up on future PRs.
  • All builds have passed. Check non-required builds for any new compiler warnings.
  • Sufficient testing is done. Check feature pragmas and test tags and that tests skipped for the ticket are run and now pass with the changes.
  • If applicable, the PR has addressed any potential version compatibility issues.
  • Check the target branch. If it is master branch, should the PR go to a feature branch? If it is a release branch, does it have merge approval in the JIRA ticket.
  • Extra checks if forced landing is requested
    • Review comments are sufficiently resolved, particularly by prior reviewers that requested changes.
    • No new NLT or valgrind warnings. Check the classic view.
    • Quick-build or Quick-functional is not used.
  • Fix the commit message upon landing. Check the standard here. Edit it to create a single commit. If necessary, ask submitter for a new summary.

Commit 53d66d7 might have introduced the following "epi != NULL"
assertion failure in crt_context_req_untrack.

  #0  raise () from /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
  #1  abort () from /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
  #2  __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
  #3  __assert_fail () from /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
  #4  crt_context_req_untrack (rpc_priv=rpc_priv@entry=0x55a254b83150)
      at src/cart/crt_context.c:1358
          crt_ctx = 0x55a25465f500
          epi = 0x0
          submit_list = {next = 0x0, prev = 0x4}
          tmp_rpc = <optimized out>
          rc = <optimized out>
          __func__ = "crt_context_req_untrack"
          __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ = "crt_context_req_untrack"
  #5  crt_hg_req_send_cb (hg_cbinfo=<optimized out>) at
      src/cart/crt_hg.c:1287
          rpc_pub = <optimized out>
          rpc_priv = <optimized out>
          hg_ret = HG_SUCCESS
          rc = 0
          __func__ = "crt_hg_req_send_cb"
          __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ = "crt_hg_req_send_cb"
          __rc = <optimized out>

The RPC might be an outgoing URI_LOOKUP request, which we don't track.
Hence its crp_epi field was NULL as expected. Commit 53d66d7 should have
asserted "epi != NULL" _after_ making sure that the RPC is not an
URI_LOOKUP request. This patch does that and removes a few useless lines
from crt_context_req_untrack_internal.

Test-tag: pr dynamic_server_pool OSAOfflineExtend NvmePoolExtend
Signed-off-by: Li Wei <[email protected]>
Required-githooks: true
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 8, 2023

Bug-tracker data:
Ticket title is 'ior: rpc EMRG src/cart/crt_context.c:1358 crt_context_req_untrack() Assertion 'epi != NULL' failed'
Status is 'In Progress'
Labels: 'ci_impact,triaged,weekly_test'
https://daosio.atlassian.net/browse/DAOS-12829

Copy link
Collaborator

@daosbuild1 daosbuild1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. No errors found by checkpatch.

@liw liw marked this pull request as ready for review March 9, 2023 02:17
@liw liw requested a review from liuxuezhao March 9, 2023 02:17
@liw liw requested a review from a team March 9, 2023 02:33
@frostedcmos frostedcmos merged commit 7ba41d9 into master Mar 9, 2023
@frostedcmos frostedcmos deleted the liw/fix-crt-untrack branch March 9, 2023 02:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants