On 03/21/2015 03:02 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:59:52PM +0200, Ivan A. Kosarev wrote:
#12 0x00000008011b428d in malloc_init_hard () at jemalloc_jemalloc.c:698
#13 malloc_init () at jemalloc_jemalloc.c:296
#14 0x0000000801243ea2 in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.7
#15 0x00000008006a5400 in ?? ()
#16 0x000000080089e5b0 in ?? () from /libexec/ld-elf.so.1
#17 0x00007fffffffe0b0 in ?? ()
#18 0x0000000801139d06 in _init () from /lib/libc.so.7
#19 0x00007fffffffe0b0 in ?? ()
The backtrace is strange.  Did you compiled malloc with the debugging
symbols, while keep rest of libc without -g ?

I've just added the -g flag to CC_FLAGS in the Makefile and made sure to install an unstripped version of the .so . I could investigate more on why the early calls omit debug symbols, if it does any matter.

Does it happen always, on only for the early initialization of the
mutexes ?

I'm not sure I understand the whole logic of the initialization process, but we could put a statement initializing the chunksize variable to 0 to the beginning of malloc_init_hard() and see if the assertion (or any other before it) fails. Since my suspicion is that the variable get random values at base_boot(), the presence of the failure depends on random factors. For a simple one-line program calling malloc() it is known to not to fail, of course. I should be able to to more tests on Mon.

   It might be related to r276630.  Can you test on, say, 10.1 ?

The Tsan tests mentioned below that cause mass (alignment != 0) failures are known to work fine on 10.1.

<jemalloc>: jemalloc_chunk.c:152: Failed assertion: "alignment != 0"

Here's more of failures of this kind around:


Can you please let me know if the analysis is correct and there's
something to fix about initialization of the variable?

Backtrace looks valid.



freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to