On Thu 16-06-16 09:06:51, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 04:45 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> >On Sat 11-06-16 21:30:00, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>On 06/11/2016 08:56 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>On 06/10/2016 12:42 PM, Jeff Furlong wrote:
> >>>>Good point. Here is the trace:
> >>>>
> >>>>[New LWP 59231]
> >>>>[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
> >>>>Using host libthread_db library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1".
> >>>>Core was generated by `fio --name=test_job --ioengine=libaio
> >>>>--direct=1 --rw=write --iodepth=32'.
> >>>>Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
> >>>>#0 0x0000000000421e39 in regrow_log (iolog=0x7f828c0c5ad0) at
> >>>>stat.c:1909
> >>>>1909 if (!cur_log) {
> >>>>
> >>>>(gdb) bt
> >>>>#0 0x0000000000421e39 in regrow_log (iolog=0x7f828c0c5ad0) at
> >>>>stat.c:1909
> >>>>#1 0x000000000042d4df in regrow_logs (td=td@entry=0x7f8277de0000) at
> >>>>stat.c:1965
> >>>>#2 0x000000000040ca90 in wait_for_completions
> >>>>(td=td@entry=0x7f8277de0000, time=time@entry=0x7fffcfb6b300) at
> >>>>backend.c:446
> >>>>#3 0x000000000045ade7 in do_io (bytes_done=<synthetic pointer>,
> >>>>td=0x7f8277de0000) at backend.c:991
> >>>>#4 thread_main (data=data@entry=0x264d450) at backend.c:1667
> >>>>#5 0x000000000045cfec in run_threads (sk_out=sk_out@entry=0x0) at
> >>>>backend.c:2217
> >>>>#6 0x000000000045d2cd in fio_backend (sk_out=sk_out@entry=0x0) at
> >>>>backend.c:2349
> >>>>#7 0x000000000040d09c in main (argc=22, argv=0x7fffcfb6f638,
> >>>>envp=<optimized out>) at fio.c:63
> >>>
> >>>That looks odd, thanks for reporting this. I'll see if I can get to this
> >>>on Monday, if not, it'll have to wait until after my vacation... So
> >>>while I appreciate people running -git and finding issues like these
> >>>before they show up in a release, might be best to revert back to 2.2.11
> >>>until I can get this debugged.
> >>
> >>I take that back - continue using -git! Just pull a fresh copy, should
> >>be fixed now.
> >>
> >>Jan, the reporter is right, 2.11 works and -git does not. So I just ran
> >>a quick bisect, changing the logging from every second to every 100ms to
> >>make it reproduce faster. I don't have time to look into why yet, so I
> >>just reverted the commit.
> >>
> >>commit d7982dd0ab2a1a315b5f9859c67a02414ce6274f
> >>Author: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> >>Date: Tue May 24 17:03:21 2016 +0200
> >>
> >> fio: Simplify forking of processes
> >
> >Hum, I've tried reproducing this but failed (I've tried using /dev/ram0 and
> >/dev/sda4 as devices for fio). Is it somehow dependent on the
> >device fio works with? I have used commit
> >54d0a3150d44adca3ee4047fabd85651c6ea2db1 (just before you reverted my
> >patch) for testing.
>
> On vacation right now, I'll check when I get back. It is possible that it
> was just a fluke, since there was another bug there related to shared
> memory, but it was predictably crashing at the same time for the bisect.
>
> It doesn't make a lot of sense, however.
Did you have a chance to look into this?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
