Er... reading comprehension fail. I meant "64bit binary still" at the bottom there.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014, dormando wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:43 PM, dormando <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, that learns me for trying to write software without the 10+ VM > > buildbots... > > > > The i386 one, can you include the output of "stats settings", and also > > manually run: "lru_crawler enable" (or start with -o lru_crawler) > > then run > > "stats settings" again please? Really weird that it fails there, but > > not > > the lines before it looking for the "OK" while enabling it. > > > > > > As soon as I type "lru_crawler enable", memcached crashes. I see this in > > dmesg. > > > > [189571.108397] traps: memcached-debug[31776] general protection > > ip:f7749988 sp:f47ff2d8 error:0 in libpthread-2.19.so[f7739000+18000] > > [189969.840918] traps: memcached-debug[2600] general protection > > ip:7f976510a1c8 sp:7f976254aed8 error:0 in > > libpthread-2.19.so[7f97650f9000+18000] > > [195892.554754] traps: memcached-debug[31871] general protection > > ip:f76f0988 sp:f46ff2d8 error:0 in libpthread-2.19.so[f76e0000+18000] > > > > Starting with "-o lru_crawler" also crashes. > > > > [195977.276379] traps: memcached-debug[2182] general protection ip:f7738988 > > sp:f75782d8 error:0 in libpthread-2.19.so[f7728000+18000] > > > > This is running both 32 bit and 64 bit executables on the same build box; > > note in the above dmesg output that two of them appear to be from 32-bit > > processes, and we also see a crash in what looks a lot like a 64 bit > > pointer address, if I'm reading this right... > > Uhh... is your cross compile goofed? > > Any chance you could start the memcached-debug binary under gdb and then > crash it the same way? Get a full stack trace. > > Thinking if I even have a 32bit host left somewhere to test with... will > have to spin up the VM's later, but a stacktrace might be enlightening > anyway. > > Thanks! > > > > > On the 64bit host, can you try increasing the sleep on > > t/lru-crawler.t:39 > > from 3 to 8 and try again? I was trying to be clever but that may not > > be > > working out. > > > > > > Didn't change anything, same two failures with the same output listed. > > I feel like something's a bit different between your two tests. In the > first set, it's definitely not crashing for the 64bit test, but not > working either. Is something weird going on with the second set of tests? > You noted it seems to be running a 32bit binary still. > > > > > Thanks! At least there're still people trying to maintain it for some > > distros... > > > > > On Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:28:24 PM UTC-5, Dormando wrote: > > > http://code.google.com/p/memcached/wiki/ReleaseNotes1418 > > > > > > > > > I just tried building the Arch Linux package for this and got > > failures when running the test suite. This was the output from the > > 32-bit i686 build; > > > I saw the same results building for x86_64. Let me know what other > > relevant information might help. > > > > > > # Failed test at t/lru-crawler.t line 45. > > > # got: undef > > > # expected: 'yes' > > > t/lru-crawler.t ...... > > > Failed 96/189 subtests > > > t/lru.t .............. ok > > > t/maxconns.t ......... ok > > > t/multiversioning.t .. ok > > > t/noreply.t .......... ok > > > t/slabs_reassign.t ... ok > > > t/stats-conns.t ...... ok > > > t/stats-detail.t ..... ok > > > t/stats.t ............ ok > > > t/touch.t ............ ok > > > t/udp.t .............. ok > > > t/unixsocket.t ....... ok > > > t/whitespace.t ....... skipped: Skipping tests probably because you > > don't have git. > > > > > > Test Summary Report > > > ------------------- > > > t/lru-crawler.t (Wstat: 13 Tests: 94 Failed: 1) > > > Failed test: 94 > > > Non-zero wait status: 13 > > > Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 189 tests but ran 94. > > > Files=48, Tests=6982, 113 wallclock secs ( 0.76 usr 0.05 sys + > > 2.27 cusr 0.35 csys = 3.43 CPU) > > > Result: FAIL > > > Makefile:1376: recipe for target 'test' failed > > > make: *** [test] Error 1 > > > ==> ERROR: A failure occurred in check(). > > > Aborting... > > > > > > > > > > > > Running out of a git checkout on x86_64, I get slightly different > > results: > > > > > > t/item_size_max.t .... ok > > > t/line-lengths.t ..... ok > > > t/lru-crawler.t ...... 93/189 > > > # Failed test 'slab1 now has 60 used chunks' > > > # at t/lru-crawler.t line 57. > > > # got: '90' > > > # expected: '60' > > > > > > # Failed test 'slab1 has 30 reclaims' > > > # at t/lru-crawler.t line 59. > > > # got: '0' > > > # expected: '30' > > > # Looks like you failed 2 tests of 189. > > > t/lru-crawler.t ...... Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) > > > Failed 2/189 subtests > > > t/lru.t .............. ok > > > t/maxconns.t ......... ok > > > t/multiversioning.t .. ok > > > t/noreply.t .......... ok > > > t/slabs_reassign.t ... ok > > > t/stats-conns.t ...... ok > > > t/stats-detail.t ..... ok > > > t/stats.t ............ ok > > > t/touch.t ............ ok > > > t/udp.t .............. ok > > > t/unixsocket.t ....... ok > > > t/whitespace.t ....... 1/120 > > > # Failed test '0001-Support-V-version-option.patch (see > > devtools/clean-whitespace.pl)' > > > # at t/whitespace.t line 40. > > > t/whitespace.t ....... 27/120 # Looks like you failed 1 test of 120. > > > t/whitespace.t ....... Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) > > > Failed 1/120 subtests > > > > > > Test Summary Report > > > ------------------- > > > t/lru-crawler.t (Wstat: 512 Tests: 189 Failed: 2) > > > Failed tests: 96-97 > > > Non-zero exit status: 2 > > > t/whitespace.t (Wstat: 256 Tests: 120 Failed: 1) > > > Failed test: 1 > > > Non-zero exit status: 1 > > > Files=48, Tests=7193, 115 wallclock secs ( 1.39 usr 0.15 sys + > > 5.39 cusr 1.02 csys = 7.95 CPU) > > > Result: FAIL > > > Makefile:1482: recipe for target 'test' failed > > > make: *** [test] Error 1 > > > > > > > > > $ git describe > > > 1.4.18 > > > > > > $ uname -a > > > Linux galway 3.14.1-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Apr 14 20:40:47 CEST > > 2014 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > > > $ gcc --version > > > gcc (GCC) 4.8.2 20140206 (prerelease) > > > Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > > This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. > > There is NO > > > warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR > > PURPOSE. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > --- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "memcached" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > > email to [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > > Google Groups "memcached" group. > > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/memcached/Tw6t_W-a6Xc/unsubscribe. > > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "memcached" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "memcached" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
