Skip to content

Conversation

@markx-arista
Copy link
Contributor

Description of PR

Summary:
Ignore expected FRR backend datastore lock contention during initialization - backends retry indefinitely until successful
Backend daemons like zebra and staticd both try to acquire the lock during initialization, and zebra starts first, then staticd retries every 50ms until zebra finishes initialization and release the lock.
Zebra takes time to initialize on some SKUs, and causes the staticd to retry. However, lock contention and retry mechanism is by design. This log is expected and it only triggers loganalyzer error because its log level is ERR.
sonic-buildimage issue: sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#24966

Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

  • Bug fix
  • Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
  • New Test case
    • Skipped for non-supported platforms
  • Test case improvement

Back port request

  • 202511

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

test_bgp_router_id.py failed due to loganalyzer during bgp service restart

How did you do it?

Ignore the expected log

How did you verify/test it?

test_bgp_router_id.py passed

Any platform specific information?

We only saw the problem on Arista 7050CX3-32c because zebra takes a little bit longer time to initialize on it. Could happen to other SKUs.

Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

Documentation

Ignore expected FRR backend datastore lock contention during initialization -
backends retry indefinitely until successful

Signed-off-by: markxiao <markxiao@arista.com>
@mssonicbld
Copy link
Collaborator

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@mssonicbld
Copy link
Collaborator

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

Copy link
Collaborator

@StormLiangMS StormLiangMS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If this is by design, should FRR downgrade the log level to "notice" instead of "error"?
As we're moving from separate mode to unified mode for config initialization, I expect the race condition between staticd and zebra will be resolved once the transition is complete.

For now, I think it is ok to ignore this error logs.
@lipxu could you help to take a look?

@StormLiangMS StormLiangMS merged commit 41b8c90 into sonic-net:master Jan 14, 2026
21 checks passed
@StormLiangMS StormLiangMS added the Request for 202511 branch Request to backport a change to 202511 branch label Jan 14, 2026
@mssonicbld
Copy link
Collaborator

@markx-arista PR conflicts with 202511 branch

PriyanshTratiya pushed a commit to PriyanshTratiya/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2026
…nic-net#21856)

Ignore expected FRR backend datastore lock contention during initialization -
backends retry indefinitely until successful

Signed-off-by: markxiao <markxiao@arista.com>
Signed-off-by: Priyansh Tratiya <ptratiya@microsoft.com>
AndoniSanguesa pushed a commit to AndoniSanguesa/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2026
…nic-net#21856)

Ignore expected FRR backend datastore lock contention during initialization -
backends retry indefinitely until successful

Signed-off-by: markxiao <markxiao@arista.com>
Signed-off-by: Andoni Sanguesa <andoniesanguesa@gmail.com>
AndoniSanguesa pushed a commit to AndoniSanguesa/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2026
…nic-net#21856)

Ignore expected FRR backend datastore lock contention during initialization -
backends retry indefinitely until successful

Signed-off-by: markxiao <markxiao@arista.com>
Signed-off-by: Andoni Sanguesa <andoniesanguesa@gmail.com>
saravanan-nexthop pushed a commit to nexthop-ai/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2026
…nic-net#21856)

Ignore expected FRR backend datastore lock contention during initialization -
backends retry indefinitely until successful

Signed-off-by: markxiao <markxiao@arista.com>
Signed-off-by: Saravanan Sellappa <saravanan@nexthop.ai>
@StormLiangMS
Copy link
Collaborator

StormLiangMS commented Jan 22, 2026

@markx-arista could you help to resolve 202511 conflict issue?

@markx-arista
Copy link
Contributor Author

@markx-arista could you help to resolve 202511 conflict issue?

Cherry-pick to 202511: #22099

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants