Sorry to open this item back up. However, it appears when we add the ramp_time option, we break the logging. Specifically, slat will log every entry, regardless of log_avg_msec. This example works as intended: # fio --name=test_job --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --rw=randread --iodepth=256 --size=100% --numjobs=4 --bs=4k --filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --group_reporting --write_bw_log=test_job --write_iops_log=test_job --write_lat_log=test_job --log_avg_msec=1000 --disable_lat=0 --disable_clat=0 --disable_slat=0 --runtime=10s --time_based --output=test_job This example is the same, but adds a ramp_time, but the slat log is full of all entries: # fio --name=test_job --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --rw=randread --iodepth=256 --size=100% --numjobs=4 --bs=4k --filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --group_reporting --write_bw_log=test_job --write_iops_log=test_job --write_lat_log=test_job --log_avg_msec=1000 --disable_lat=0 --disable_clat=0 --disable_slat=0 --runtime=10s --time_based --output=test_job --ramp_time=1s Regards, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Jens Axboe [mailto:axboe@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 11:35 AM To: Jeff Furlong <jeff.furlong@xxxxxxxx>; Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> Cc: Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx>; fio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: fio signal 11 Perfect, thanks for testing! On 07/26/2016 12:33 PM, Jeff Furlong wrote: > FYI, with the patch back in version fio-2.13-1-gce8b, I re-ran my prior workload that caused the signal 11. The workload now completes without issue. > > Regards, > Jeff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fio-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fio-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Jens Axboe > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 7:17 AM > To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Jeff Furlong <jeff.furlong@xxxxxxxx>; Sitsofe Wheeler > <sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx>; fio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: fio signal 11 > > On 07/26/2016 02:43 AM, Jan Kara wrote: >> On Mon 25-07-16 09:21:00, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 07/19/2016 11:08 PM, Jan Kara wrote: >>>> 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? >>> >>> I have not, unfortunately, but I'm suspecting the patch is fine and >>> the later fix to allocate the cur_log out of the shared pool was the >>> real fix and that the original patch was fine. >> >> So that's what I'd suspect as well but I'm not able to reproduce even >> the original crash so I cannot verify this theory... What's the plan >> going forward? Will you re-apply the patch? Frankly, I don't care >> much, it was just a small cleanup. I'm just curious whether it was >> really that other bug or whether I miss something. > > Yes, I think re-applying would be the best way forward. Especially since that 2.13 was just released, so we'll have a while to iron out any issues. But I really don't see how it could be the reason for the issue, I'm guessing it just exacerbated it somehow. > > -- > Jens Axboe > > -- > 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 > Western Digital Corporation (and its subsidiaries) E-mail Confidentiality Notice & Disclaimer: > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential or legally privileged information of WDC and/or its affiliates, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail in its entirety from your system. > -- Jens Axboe Western Digital Corporation (and its subsidiaries) E-mail Confidentiality Notice & Disclaimer: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential or legally privileged information of WDC and/or its affiliates, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail in its entirety from your system. -- 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
