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: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer_x86_64-freebsd/builds/4758/steps/make-check-tsan/logs/stdio > > 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. Thanks. --Received on Sat Mar 21 2015 - 08:20:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:56 UTC