On 16-12-2015 13:51, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote: > Would you mind create an issue in http://tracker.ceph.com/ and tell me > how to reproduce the bug? http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14095 Not sure if the description is enough to actually to reproduce the assert. --WjW > > Thanks. > > 2015-12-16 18:26 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> On 16-12-2015 10:40, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote: >>> >>> Because we use the new strategy for filejournal in master branch. the >>> write entry submit to writeq is aligned already. >>> So if assert at this line, this strategy should have bug. >>> >>> I do not know why you have some heads #include, Maybe you modify the >>> logic in filejournal? >> >> >> No, the adds I've done are to work around the fact that the linux_version >> stuff >> is not really going to work for FreeBSD. Not the test, nor the resulting >> code. >> >> So the header part of the file now looks like: >> #include "common/blkdev.h" >> #if defined(__linux__) >> #include "common/linux_version.h" >> #endif >> >> #if defined(__FreeBSD__) >> #include "common/freebsd_version.h" >> #define O_DSYNC O_SYNC >> #endif >> >> The remainder of the diffs are about locking when using aio, which i do not >> ATM. >> >> So never say never with software, but I think I've left the logic as it >> is/was. >> >> --WjW >> >> >>> >>> 2015-12-16 17:20 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> >>>> On 16-12-2015 02:57, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You mean your ceph assert(0 == "bl should be align"), right? >>>>> >>>>> But in master branch, the 1036 line is not assert(0 == "bl should be >>>>> align"). >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes you are correct. I think I have some heade #includes why this moves >>>> down in my file. >>>> >>>> None the less I still get trapped on that specific assert. >>>> >>>> Next question is of course why this code is what it is. Since once the >>>> assert triggers, the remainder does not get executed. >>>> Unless compiled with NDEBUG, then only the warning gets printed. >>>> But the other asserts never get triggered. >>>> >>>> So back to my original question, Why have this very stringent test and >>>> than in test/buffer.cc forgo the fact that this could/should be aligned. >>>> >>>> --WjW >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2015-12-16 7:56 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm receiving traps when running the tests going with 'gmake check' >>>>>> and on one of the tests it traps on: >>>>>> >>>>>> os/FileJournal.cc:1036 >>>>>> void FileJournal::align_bl(off64_t pos, bufferlist& bl) >>>>>> { >>>>>> // make sure list segments are page aligned >>>>>> if (directio && (!bl.is_aligned(block_size) || >>>>>> !bl.is_n_align_sized(CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE))) { >>>>>> assert(0 == "bl should be align"); >>>>>> if ((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0 || >>>>>> (pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0) >>>>>> dout(0) << "rebuild_page_aligned failed, " << bl << dendl; >>>>>> assert((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0); >>>>>> assert((pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0); >>>>>> } >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> And then I get confused with the following commit in other tests: >>>>>> commit 8ed724222651812c2ee8cc3804dc1f54c973897d >>>>>> Author: Kefu Chai <kchai@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Date: Fri Sep 4 01:23:31 2015 +0800 >>>>>> >>>>>> test/bufferlist: do not expect !is_page_aligned() after unaligned >>>>>> rebuild >>>>>> >>>>>> if the size of a bufferlist is page aligned we allocate page >>>>>> aligned >>>>>> memory chunk for it when rebuild() is called. otherwise we just >>>>>> call >>>>>> the plain new() to allocate new memory chunk for holding the >>>>>> continuous >>>>>> buffer. but we should not expect that `new` allocator always >>>>>> returns >>>>>> unaligned memory chunks. instead, it *could* return page aligned >>>>>> memory chunk as long as the allocator feels appropriate. so, the >>>>>> `EXPECT_FALSE(bl.is_page_aligned())` after the `rebuild()` call is >>>>>> removed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> >>>>>> Could these 2 be related, and do I have an alignment problem when >>>>>> allocating buffers and bufferlists.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that I also have not solved the illegal writes to _len in >>>>>> bufferlists when running unittest_erasure_code_shec_arguments. >>>>>> >>>>>> So any suggestions as to where to look at for this, are welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> --WjW >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" >>>>>> in >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
