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

Jump to bottom

osd: pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval #5373

Merged
2 commits merged into from Sep 7, 2015
Merged

osd: pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval #5373

2 commits merged into from Sep 7, 2015

Conversation

ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Jul 28, 2015

Guang G Yang added 2 commits July 28, 2015 15:00
@ldachary
osd: Move IsRecoverablePredicate/IsReadablePredicate to osd_types.h
c5f0e22 
Signed-off-by: Guang Yang <yguang@yahoo-inc.com>
(cherry picked from commit 466b083)
@ldachary
osd: pg_interval_t::check_new_interval should not rely on pool.min_si…
cd11b88 
…ze to determine if the PG was active

If the pool's min_size is set improperly, during peering, pg_interval_t::check_new_interval
might wrongly determine the PG's state and cause the PG to stuck at down+peering forever

Fixes: #12162
Signed-off-by: Guang Yang yguang@yahoo-inc.com
(cherry picked from commit 6849274)

Conflicts:
	src/osd/PG.cc
           because PG::start_peering_interval has an assert
           that is not found in hammer in the context
	src/test/osd/types.cc
           because include/stringify.h is not included by
           types.cc in hammer
@ghost ghost self-assigned this Jul 28, 2015
@ghost ghost added this to the hammer milestone Jul 28, 2015
@ghost ghost added bug-fix core labels Jul 28, 2015
@loic-bot
Copy link

SUCCESS: http://jenkins.ceph.dachary.org/job/ceph/6694/

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2015
@ldachary
Merge pull request #5373: pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec …
f9def51 
…pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval

Reviewed-by:
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Aug 30, 2015

@athanatos does this backport look good to merge ? It passed a run of the hammer rados suite ( see http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12701#rados for details ).

Please note that it did not cherry-pick cleanly and the details of the conflict resolution are at cd11b88. I believe they are not significant but it deserves verification.

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 30, 2015
@ldachary
Merge pull request #5373: pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec …
07d3717 
…pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval

Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 30, 2015
@ldachary
Merge pull request #5373: pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec …
edabde1 
…pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval

Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 30, 2015
@ldachary
Merge pull request #5373: pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec …
a78f7c6 
…pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval

Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 31, 2015
@ldachary
Merge pull request #5373: pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec …
594737d 
…pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval

Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 1, 2015
@ldachary
Merge pull request #5373: pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec …
b39166b 
…pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval

Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 2, 2015
@ldachary
Merge pull request #5373: pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec …
f0fc0cb 
…pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval

Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Sep 6, 2015

@liewegas Sam's on vacation, would you mind taking a look at that backport ?

@ghost ghost assigned liewegas and unassigned ghost Sep 6, 2015
@liewegas
Copy link
Member

liewegas commented Sep 7, 2015

👍

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 7, 2015
Merge pull request #5373 from dachary/wip-12489-hammer
5ef999e 
pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval

Reviewed-by: Sage Weil <sage@redhat.com>
@ghost ghost merged commit 5ef999e into ceph:hammer Sep 7, 2015
@ghost ghost changed the title pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval osd: pg_interval_t::check_new_interval - for ec pool, should not rely on min_size to determine if the PG was active at the interval Sep 13, 2015
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@liewegas liewegas

Labels
bug-fix core
Projects
None yet
Milestone
hammer
2 participants
@loic-bot @liewegas