[Lustre-discuss] Lustre v2.1 RHEL 6.1 build does not work

[Jon Zhu]

Hi, Oleg

Do we have a procedure on how to build v2.1 GA code on CentOS 5.6 (xen)? On
whamcloud wiki I can only find build v2.1 on RHEL 6.1 or build v1.8 on
CentOS 5.6.

BTW, congratulations on the 2.1 release!

Regards,

Jon Zhu
Sent from Google Mail




On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Oleg Drokin <green at whamcloud.com> wrote:

> Hwllo~
>
> On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:51 PM, Jon Zhu wrote:
>
> > I still got some crash when further run some I/O test with the build,
> here's some system message containing call stack info maybe be useful to you
> to find the bug:
>
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: ------------[ cut here
> ]------------
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: WARNING: at kernel/sched.c:7087
> __cond_resched_lock+0x8e/0xb0() (Not tainted)
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: Modules linked in: lustre(U)
> lov(U) osc(U) lquota(U) mdc(U) fid(U) fld(U) ksocklnd(U) ptlrpc(U)
> obdclass(U) lnet(U) lvfs(U) libcfs(U) ldiskfs(U) sha256_generic cryptd
> aes_x86_64 aes_generic cbc dm_crypt autofs4 ipv6 microcode xen_netfront ext4
> mbcache jbd2 xen_blkfront dm_mod [last unloaded: scsi_wait_scan]
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: Pid: 1421, comm: mount.lustre
> Not tainted 2.6.32.lustre21 #6
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: Call Trace:
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff81069c37>] ?
> warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xc0
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff81007671>] ?
> __raw_callee_save_xen_save_fl+0x11/0x1e
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff81069c8a>] ?
> warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff810654fe>] ?
> __cond_resched_lock+0x8e/0xb0
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff811a53b7>] ?
> shrink_dcache_for_umount_subtree+0x187/0x340
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff811a55a6>] ?
> shrink_dcache_for_umount+0x36/0x60
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff8118f4ff>] ?
> generic_shutdown_super+0x1f/0xe0
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff8118f5f1>] ?
> kill_block_super+0x31/0x50
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff811906b5>] ?
> deactivate_super+0x85/0xa0
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff811ac5af>] ?
> mntput_no_expire+0xbf/0x110
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffffa0273f8e>] ?
> unlock_mntput+0x3e/0x60 [obdclass]
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffffa0277a98>] ?
> server_kernel_mount+0x268/0xe80 [obdclass]
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffffa0280d40>] ?
> lustre_fill_super+0x0/0x1290 [obdclass]
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffffa0279070>] ?
> lustre_init_lsi+0xd0/0x5b0 [obdclass]
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff810ac71d>] ?
> lock_release+0xed/0x220
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffffa0280fd0>] ?
> lustre_fill_super+0x290/0x1290 [obdclass]
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff8118ee20>] ?
> set_anon_super+0x0/0x110
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffffa0280d40>] ?
> lustre_fill_super+0x0/0x1290 [obdclass]
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff8119035f>] ?
> get_sb_nodev+0x5f/0xa0
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffffa0272885>] ?
> lustre_get_sb+0x25/0x30 [obdclass]
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff8118ffbb>] ?
> vfs_kern_mount+0x7b/0x1b0
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff81190162>] ?
> do_kern_mount+0x52/0x130
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff811ae647>] ?
> do_mount+0x2e7/0x870
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff811aec60>] ?
> sys_mount+0x90/0xe0
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: [<ffffffff8100b132>] ?
> system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> > Jun 23 21:46:12 ip-10-112-59-173 kernel: ---[ end trace a8fb737c71bfba13
> ]---
>
> This is not a crash, it's just a warning about scheduling in inappropriate
> context I guess, but the kernel will continue to work.
> Interesting that I have never seen anything like that in rhel5 xen kernels,
> perhaps it's something with rhel6.1 xen?
>
> Bye,
>    Oleg
> --
> Oleg Drokin
> Senior Software Engineer
> Whamcloud, Inc.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20110929/54e55fd3/attachment.htm>