From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp49.i.mail.ru (smtp49.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.109])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EB1E469711
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri,  8 May 2020 00:47:54 +0300 (MSK)
References: <cover.1588273848.git.korablev@tarantool.org>
 <5012bd8eb07b5379eb70aa777402c7cd566a3b34.1588273848.git.korablev@tarantool.org>
 <959a3f72-6b95-30b1-c838-3b9e2bebc04c@tarantool.org>
 <20200507130256.GB11724@tarantool.org> <20200507141653.GA7782@atlas>
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <5c69fa0a-3ec3-95d7-b286-ce58e327bc10@tarantool.org>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 23:47:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200507141653.GA7782@atlas>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2/2] vinyl: drop wasted runs in case
	range recovery fails
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>, Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org>, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, alyapunov@tarantool.org

On 07/05/2020 16:16, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org> [20/05/07 16:05]:
>>>
>>> Reference counter looks like not a good information channel.
>>> Could you use run->fd to check whether the run was really recovered?
>>> vy_run_recover() leaves it -1, when fails.
>>>
>>> Otherwise this won't work the second when we will ref the run anywhere
>>> else.
>>
>> Firstly, lsm at this point is not restored, ergo it is not functional
>> and run can't be refed somewehere else - it's life span is clearly
>> defined. Secondly, the problem is not in the last run (which failed to
>> recover) but in those which are already recovered at the moment.
>> Recovered runs feature valid fds. Finally, slice recover may fail
>> not only in vy_run_recover(), but also due to oom, broken vylog etc.
>> All these scenarios lead to the same situation.
> 
> It should be partially restored in case of force_recovery. It's
> another bug force_recovery is not respected, I've been sending a
> fix to the list a few months ago.

Is there a test case and an issue on that? Nikita, could you please
find it/file it/confirm it/reject it?