Re: FreeBSD crushtool crashing while checking a crushmap

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8-2-2016 06:53, kefu chai wrote:
sorry, just sent an out-dated reply.

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,

While running run-cli-tests one of the tests dumps while checking if the
previous command has build the correct crushmap.
I've verified the actual crushmap against one build on CentOS, and they
are byte for byte equal.

Before I rebased (from beginning of januari) all these tests completed
just fine.

During checking I get the following dump:

# src/crushtool -i
src/tes/cli/crushtool/check-overlapped-rules.crushmap.ref --check
Assertion failed: (this->_map.find(inter_val) == this->_map.end()),
function gap_insert, file
/usr/local/include/boost/icl/interval_base_map.hpp, line 555.
*** Caught signal (Abort trap) **
  in thread 803e15000
  ceph version Development (no_version)
  1: 0x86f865 <_ZN4ceph9BackTraceC2Ei+0x35> at
/usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/crushtool
  2: 0x86e5f9 <_ZL19handle_fatal_signali+0xa9> at
/usr/srcs/Ceph/work/ceph/src/crushtool
  3: 0x801811c7d <pthread_sigmask+0x50d> at /lib/libthr.so.3
  4: 0x8018112b2 <pthread_getspecific+0xe22> at /lib/libthr.so.3
2016-02-06 22:55:09.075189 803e15000 -1

Deleted remainder of the output....

And I appreciate any pointers in helping me debugging this.

hey Willem, thanks for looking into this. turns out this is a known issue of
boost 1.55. just posted a pull request to workaround it at
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/7560.

also did i create a minimal reproducer, it can help with reproducing this
issue and verify the fix.

you can compile it using:

$ clang++ -std=c++11 -O0 -g test.cc -lm -o test


pffh,

That's a relieve, since I would otherwise be quite a chase....
and yes, I'm still at boost 1.55.

Perhaps in the test check-overlapped-rules.t an extra test:
cmp "$TESTDIR/check-overlapped-rules.crushmap" "$TESTDIR/check-overlapped-rules.crushmap.ref"

Which will at least tell you that the output was consistent with what sould be there.
And it'll pin-point the source of the error perhaps a bit better.

Can I just "accept" a pull request in my fork without running into trouble
when I rebase?

--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



[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux