Hi,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Jason Evans <jas...@canonware.com> wrote: > > The stats failures are all due to mallctl argument size mismatches, fixed > here: > > > https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/commit/2b51a3e9e9bfebf081d25dfa92f3cd89e4a8ed73 > > > test_oom_errors:test/integration/aligned_alloc.c:59: Failed assertion: > (p != ((void *)0) || je_get_errno() != 12) == (false) --> true != false: > test_oom_errors > > > > test_alignment_errors:test/integration/mallocx.c:53: Failed assertion: > (p) == (NULL) --> 0x40000000 != 0x0: test_alignment_errors > > > > test_oom_errors:test/integration/posix_memalign.c:53: Failed assertion: > (posix_memalign(&p, alignment, size)) != (0) --> 0 == 0: test_oom_errors > > > > 64bit builds are fine. > > > Wow, the machine is actually satisfying an mmap() request of size > 0xd0000000 (3.5 GiB) in order for this to be happening. The tests are > flawed, and they "pass" on 64-bit systems because of the virtual memory > hole in the middle of the 64-bit address space. Fixed here: > > > https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/commit/a184d3fcdecfaaf694029fb375d023882aea444e > > In the case of mallocx(), this is technically undefined territory, so just > removed that test, but for aligned_alloc() and posix_memalign(), I > increased the request size enough to guarantee failure. > > In summary, these failures are all due to test bugs, rather than bugs in > the library itself. > After addings these two patches I have 2 new failures: thd_start:test/unit/prof_accum.c:83: Failed assertion: (bt_count_prev+(i-i_prev)) <= (bt_count) --> 6 > 1: thd_start and [test_alignment_errors:test/integration/allocm.c:60: Failed assertion: (allocm(&p, &rsz, sz, (ffs(alignment)-1))) != (0) --> 0 == 0: test_alignment_errors Thanks, ismail
_______________________________________________ jemalloc-discuss mailing list jemalloc-discuss@canonware.com http://www.canonware.com/mailman/listinfo/jemalloc-discuss
