FreeBSD is receiving traps on os/FileJournal.cc:1036

FreeBSD is receiving traps on os/FileJournal.cc:1036

[Willem Jan Withagen]

Hi,

I'm receiving traps when running the tests going with 'gmake check'
and on one of the tests it traps on:

os/FileJournal.cc:1036
void FileJournal::align_bl(off64_t pos, bufferlist& bl)
{
  // make sure list segments are page aligned
  if (directio && (!bl.is_aligned(block_size) ||
                   !bl.is_n_align_sized(CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE))) {
    assert(0 == "bl should be align");
    if ((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0 ||
        (pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0)
      dout(0) << "rebuild_page_aligned failed, " << bl << dendl;
    assert((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
    assert((pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
  }
}

And then I get confused with the following commit in other tests:
commit 8ed724222651812c2ee8cc3804dc1f54c973897d
Author: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri Sep 4 01:23:31 2015 +0800

    test/bufferlist: do not expect !is_page_aligned() after unaligned
rebuild

    if the size of a bufferlist is page aligned we allocate page aligned
    memory chunk for it when rebuild() is called. otherwise we just call
    the plain new() to allocate new memory chunk for holding the continuous
    buffer. but we should not expect that `new` allocator always returns
    unaligned memory chunks. instead, it *could* return page aligned
    memory chunk as long as the allocator feels appropriate. so, the
    `EXPECT_FALSE(bl.is_page_aligned())` after the `rebuild()` call is
    removed.

    Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>

Could these 2 be related, and do I have an alignment problem when
allocating buffers and bufferlists....

Note that I also have not solved the illegal writes to _len in
bufferlists when running unittest_erasure_code_shec_arguments.

So any suggestions as to where to look at for this, are welcome.

--WjW

Re: FreeBSD is receiving traps on os/FileJournal.cc:1036

[Xinze Chi (信泽)]

You mean your ceph assert(0 == "bl should be align"), right?

But in master branch, the 1036 line is not assert(0 == "bl should be align").

2015-12-16 7:56 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
> Hi,
>
> I'm receiving traps when running the tests going with 'gmake check'
> and on one of the tests it traps on:
>
> os/FileJournal.cc:1036
> void FileJournal::align_bl(off64_t pos, bufferlist& bl)
> {
>   // make sure list segments are page aligned
>   if (directio && (!bl.is_aligned(block_size) ||
>                    !bl.is_n_align_sized(CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE))) {
>     assert(0 == "bl should be align");
>     if ((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0 ||
>         (pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0)
>       dout(0) << "rebuild_page_aligned failed, " << bl << dendl;
>     assert((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>     assert((pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>   }
> }
>
> And then I get confused with the following commit in other tests:
> commit 8ed724222651812c2ee8cc3804dc1f54c973897d
> Author: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
> Date:   Fri Sep 4 01:23:31 2015 +0800
>
>     test/bufferlist: do not expect !is_page_aligned() after unaligned
> rebuild
>
>     if the size of a bufferlist is page aligned we allocate page aligned
>     memory chunk for it when rebuild() is called. otherwise we just call
>     the plain new() to allocate new memory chunk for holding the continuous
>     buffer. but we should not expect that `new` allocator always returns
>     unaligned memory chunks. instead, it *could* return page aligned
>     memory chunk as long as the allocator feels appropriate. so, the
>     `EXPECT_FALSE(bl.is_page_aligned())` after the `rebuild()` call is
>     removed.
>
>     Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>
> Could these 2 be related, and do I have an alignment problem when
> allocating buffers and bufferlists....
>
> Note that I also have not solved the illegal writes to _len in
> bufferlists when running unittest_erasure_code_shec_arguments.
>
> So any suggestions as to where to look at for this, are welcome.
>
> --WjW
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



-- 
Regards,
Xinze Chi

Re: FreeBSD is receiving traps on os/FileJournal.cc:1036

[Willem Jan Withagen]

On 16-12-2015 02:57, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
> You mean your ceph assert(0 == "bl should be align"), right?
> 
> But in master branch, the 1036 line is not assert(0 == "bl should be align").

Yes you are correct. I think I have some heade #includes why this moves
down in my file.

None the less I still get trapped on that specific assert.

Next question is of course why this code is what it is. Since once the
assert triggers, the remainder does not get executed.
Unless compiled with NDEBUG, then only the warning gets printed.
But the other asserts never get triggered.

So back to my original question, Why have this very stringent test and
than in test/buffer.cc forgo the fact that this could/should be aligned.

--WjW


> 2015-12-16 7:56 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm receiving traps when running the tests going with 'gmake check'
>> and on one of the tests it traps on:
>>
>> os/FileJournal.cc:1036
>> void FileJournal::align_bl(off64_t pos, bufferlist& bl)
>> {
>>   // make sure list segments are page aligned
>>   if (directio && (!bl.is_aligned(block_size) ||
>>                    !bl.is_n_align_sized(CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE))) {
>>     assert(0 == "bl should be align");
>>     if ((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0 ||
>>         (pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0)
>>       dout(0) << "rebuild_page_aligned failed, " << bl << dendl;
>>     assert((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>     assert((pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> And then I get confused with the following commit in other tests:
>> commit 8ed724222651812c2ee8cc3804dc1f54c973897d
>> Author: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>> Date:   Fri Sep 4 01:23:31 2015 +0800
>>
>>     test/bufferlist: do not expect !is_page_aligned() after unaligned
>> rebuild
>>
>>     if the size of a bufferlist is page aligned we allocate page aligned
>>     memory chunk for it when rebuild() is called. otherwise we just call
>>     the plain new() to allocate new memory chunk for holding the continuous
>>     buffer. but we should not expect that `new` allocator always returns
>>     unaligned memory chunks. instead, it *could* return page aligned
>>     memory chunk as long as the allocator feels appropriate. so, the
>>     `EXPECT_FALSE(bl.is_page_aligned())` after the `rebuild()` call is
>>     removed.
>>
>>     Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>>
>> Could these 2 be related, and do I have an alignment problem when
>> allocating buffers and bufferlists....
>>
>> Note that I also have not solved the illegal writes to _len in
>> bufferlists when running unittest_erasure_code_shec_arguments.
>>
>> So any suggestions as to where to look at for this, are welcome.
>>
>> --WjW
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: FreeBSD is receiving traps on os/FileJournal.cc:1036

[Xinze Chi (信泽)]

Because we use the new strategy for filejournal in master branch. the
write entry submit to writeq is aligned already.
So if assert at this line, this strategy should have bug.

I do not know why you have some heads #include, Maybe you modify the
logic in filejournal?

2015-12-16 17:20 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
> On 16-12-2015 02:57, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
>> You mean your ceph assert(0 == "bl should be align"), right?
>>
>> But in master branch, the 1036 line is not assert(0 == "bl should be align").
>
> Yes you are correct. I think I have some heade #includes why this moves
> down in my file.
>
> None the less I still get trapped on that specific assert.
>
> Next question is of course why this code is what it is. Since once the
> assert triggers, the remainder does not get executed.
> Unless compiled with NDEBUG, then only the warning gets printed.
> But the other asserts never get triggered.
>
> So back to my original question, Why have this very stringent test and
> than in test/buffer.cc forgo the fact that this could/should be aligned.
>
> --WjW
>
>
>> 2015-12-16 7:56 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm receiving traps when running the tests going with 'gmake check'
>>> and on one of the tests it traps on:
>>>
>>> os/FileJournal.cc:1036
>>> void FileJournal::align_bl(off64_t pos, bufferlist& bl)
>>> {
>>>   // make sure list segments are page aligned
>>>   if (directio && (!bl.is_aligned(block_size) ||
>>>                    !bl.is_n_align_sized(CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE))) {
>>>     assert(0 == "bl should be align");
>>>     if ((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0 ||
>>>         (pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0)
>>>       dout(0) << "rebuild_page_aligned failed, " << bl << dendl;
>>>     assert((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>>     assert((pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>>   }
>>> }
>>>
>>> And then I get confused with the following commit in other tests:
>>> commit 8ed724222651812c2ee8cc3804dc1f54c973897d
>>> Author: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>>> Date:   Fri Sep 4 01:23:31 2015 +0800
>>>
>>>     test/bufferlist: do not expect !is_page_aligned() after unaligned
>>> rebuild
>>>
>>>     if the size of a bufferlist is page aligned we allocate page aligned
>>>     memory chunk for it when rebuild() is called. otherwise we just call
>>>     the plain new() to allocate new memory chunk for holding the continuous
>>>     buffer. but we should not expect that `new` allocator always returns
>>>     unaligned memory chunks. instead, it *could* return page aligned
>>>     memory chunk as long as the allocator feels appropriate. so, the
>>>     `EXPECT_FALSE(bl.is_page_aligned())` after the `rebuild()` call is
>>>     removed.
>>>
>>>     Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Could these 2 be related, and do I have an alignment problem when
>>> allocating buffers and bufferlists....
>>>
>>> Note that I also have not solved the illegal writes to _len in
>>> bufferlists when running unittest_erasure_code_shec_arguments.
>>>
>>> So any suggestions as to where to look at for this, are welcome.
>>>
>>> --WjW
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Regards,
Xinze Chi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: FreeBSD is receiving traps on os/FileJournal.cc:1036

[Willem Jan Withagen]

On 16-12-2015 10:40, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
> Because we use the new strategy for filejournal in master branch. the
> write entry submit to writeq is aligned already.
> So if assert at this line, this strategy should have bug.
>
> I do not know why you have some heads #include, Maybe you modify the
> logic in filejournal?

No, the adds I've done are to work around the fact that the 
linux_version stuff
is not really going to work for FreeBSD. Not the test, nor the resulting 
code.

So the header part of the file  now looks like:
#include "common/blkdev.h"
#if defined(__linux__)
#include "common/linux_version.h"
#endif

#if defined(__FreeBSD__)
#include "common/freebsd_version.h"
#define O_DSYNC O_SYNC
#endif

The remainder of the diffs are about locking when using aio, which i do 
not ATM.

So never say never with software, but I think I've left the logic as it 
is/was.

--WjW

>
> 2015-12-16 17:20 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>> On 16-12-2015 02:57, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
>>> You mean your ceph assert(0 == "bl should be align"), right?
>>>
>>> But in master branch, the 1036 line is not assert(0 == "bl should be align").
>>
>> Yes you are correct. I think I have some heade #includes why this moves
>> down in my file.
>>
>> None the less I still get trapped on that specific assert.
>>
>> Next question is of course why this code is what it is. Since once the
>> assert triggers, the remainder does not get executed.
>> Unless compiled with NDEBUG, then only the warning gets printed.
>> But the other asserts never get triggered.
>>
>> So back to my original question, Why have this very stringent test and
>> than in test/buffer.cc forgo the fact that this could/should be aligned.
>>
>> --WjW
>>
>>
>>> 2015-12-16 7:56 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm receiving traps when running the tests going with 'gmake check'
>>>> and on one of the tests it traps on:
>>>>
>>>> os/FileJournal.cc:1036
>>>> void FileJournal::align_bl(off64_t pos, bufferlist& bl)
>>>> {
>>>>    // make sure list segments are page aligned
>>>>    if (directio && (!bl.is_aligned(block_size) ||
>>>>                     !bl.is_n_align_sized(CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE))) {
>>>>      assert(0 == "bl should be align");
>>>>      if ((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0 ||
>>>>          (pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0)
>>>>        dout(0) << "rebuild_page_aligned failed, " << bl << dendl;
>>>>      assert((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>>>      assert((pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>>>    }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> And then I get confused with the following commit in other tests:
>>>> commit 8ed724222651812c2ee8cc3804dc1f54c973897d
>>>> Author: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>>>> Date:   Fri Sep 4 01:23:31 2015 +0800
>>>>
>>>>      test/bufferlist: do not expect !is_page_aligned() after unaligned
>>>> rebuild
>>>>
>>>>      if the size of a bufferlist is page aligned we allocate page aligned
>>>>      memory chunk for it when rebuild() is called. otherwise we just call
>>>>      the plain new() to allocate new memory chunk for holding the continuous
>>>>      buffer. but we should not expect that `new` allocator always returns
>>>>      unaligned memory chunks. instead, it *could* return page aligned
>>>>      memory chunk as long as the allocator feels appropriate. so, the
>>>>      `EXPECT_FALSE(bl.is_page_aligned())` after the `rebuild()` call is
>>>>      removed.
>>>>
>>>>      Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> Could these 2 be related, and do I have an alignment problem when
>>>> allocating buffers and bufferlists....
>>>>
>>>> Note that I also have not solved the illegal writes to _len in
>>>> bufferlists when running unittest_erasure_code_shec_arguments.
>>>>
>>>> So any suggestions as to where to look at for this, are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> --WjW
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: FreeBSD is receiving traps on os/FileJournal.cc:1036

[Xinze Chi (信泽)]

Would you mind create an issue in http://tracker.ceph.com/ and tell me
how to reproduce the bug?

Thanks.

2015-12-16 18:26 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
> On 16-12-2015 10:40, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
>>
>> Because we use the new strategy for filejournal in master branch. the
>> write entry submit to writeq is aligned already.
>> So if assert at this line, this strategy should have bug.
>>
>> I do not know why you have some heads #include, Maybe you modify the
>> logic in filejournal?
>
>
> No, the adds I've done are to work around the fact that the linux_version
> stuff
> is not really going to work for FreeBSD. Not the test, nor the resulting
> code.
>
> So the header part of the file  now looks like:
> #include "common/blkdev.h"
> #if defined(__linux__)
> #include "common/linux_version.h"
> #endif
>
> #if defined(__FreeBSD__)
> #include "common/freebsd_version.h"
> #define O_DSYNC O_SYNC
> #endif
>
> The remainder of the diffs are about locking when using aio, which i do not
> ATM.
>
> So never say never with software, but I think I've left the logic as it
> is/was.
>
> --WjW
>
>
>>
>> 2015-12-16 17:20 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>>>
>>> On 16-12-2015 02:57, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You mean your ceph assert(0 == "bl should be align"), right?
>>>>
>>>> But in master branch, the 1036 line is not assert(0 == "bl should be
>>>> align").
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes you are correct. I think I have some heade #includes why this moves
>>> down in my file.
>>>
>>> None the less I still get trapped on that specific assert.
>>>
>>> Next question is of course why this code is what it is. Since once the
>>> assert triggers, the remainder does not get executed.
>>> Unless compiled with NDEBUG, then only the warning gets printed.
>>> But the other asserts never get triggered.
>>>
>>> So back to my original question, Why have this very stringent test and
>>> than in test/buffer.cc forgo the fact that this could/should be aligned.
>>>
>>> --WjW
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2015-12-16 7:56 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm receiving traps when running the tests going with 'gmake check'
>>>>> and on one of the tests it traps on:
>>>>>
>>>>> os/FileJournal.cc:1036
>>>>> void FileJournal::align_bl(off64_t pos, bufferlist& bl)
>>>>> {
>>>>>    // make sure list segments are page aligned
>>>>>    if (directio && (!bl.is_aligned(block_size) ||
>>>>>                     !bl.is_n_align_sized(CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE))) {
>>>>>      assert(0 == "bl should be align");
>>>>>      if ((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0 ||
>>>>>          (pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0)
>>>>>        dout(0) << "rebuild_page_aligned failed, " << bl << dendl;
>>>>>      assert((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>>>>      assert((pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>>>>    }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> And then I get confused with the following commit in other tests:
>>>>> commit 8ed724222651812c2ee8cc3804dc1f54c973897d
>>>>> Author: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>>>>> Date:   Fri Sep 4 01:23:31 2015 +0800
>>>>>
>>>>>      test/bufferlist: do not expect !is_page_aligned() after unaligned
>>>>> rebuild
>>>>>
>>>>>      if the size of a bufferlist is page aligned we allocate page
>>>>> aligned
>>>>>      memory chunk for it when rebuild() is called. otherwise we just
>>>>> call
>>>>>      the plain new() to allocate new memory chunk for holding the
>>>>> continuous
>>>>>      buffer. but we should not expect that `new` allocator always
>>>>> returns
>>>>>      unaligned memory chunks. instead, it *could* return page aligned
>>>>>      memory chunk as long as the allocator feels appropriate. so, the
>>>>>      `EXPECT_FALSE(bl.is_page_aligned())` after the `rebuild()` call is
>>>>>      removed.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Could these 2 be related, and do I have an alignment problem when
>>>>> allocating buffers and bufferlists....
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that I also have not solved the illegal writes to _len in
>>>>> bufferlists when running unittest_erasure_code_shec_arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> So any suggestions as to where to look at for this, are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> --WjW
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel"
>>>>> in
>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Regards,
Xinze Chi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: FreeBSD is receiving traps on os/FileJournal.cc:1036

[Willem Jan Withagen]

On 16-12-2015 13:51, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
> Would you mind create an issue in http://tracker.ceph.com/ and tell me
> how to reproduce the bug?

You are aware that that requires running FreeBSD?

I will enter a ticket into the tracker.

--WjW


> Thanks.
>
> 2015-12-16 18:26 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>> On 16-12-2015 10:40, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
>>>
>>> Because we use the new strategy for filejournal in master branch. the
>>> write entry submit to writeq is aligned already.
>>> So if assert at this line, this strategy should have bug.
>>>
>>> I do not know why you have some heads #include, Maybe you modify the
>>> logic in filejournal?
>>
>>
>> No, the adds I've done are to work around the fact that the linux_version
>> stuff
>> is not really going to work for FreeBSD. Not the test, nor the resulting
>> code.
>>
>> So the header part of the file  now looks like:
>> #include "common/blkdev.h"
>> #if defined(__linux__)
>> #include "common/linux_version.h"
>> #endif
>>
>> #if defined(__FreeBSD__)
>> #include "common/freebsd_version.h"
>> #define O_DSYNC O_SYNC
>> #endif
>>
>> The remainder of the diffs are about locking when using aio, which i do not
>> ATM.
>>
>> So never say never with software, but I think I've left the logic as it
>> is/was.
>>
>> --WjW
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2015-12-16 17:20 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>>>>
>>>> On 16-12-2015 02:57, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean your ceph assert(0 == "bl should be align"), right?
>>>>>
>>>>> But in master branch, the 1036 line is not assert(0 == "bl should be
>>>>> align").
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes you are correct. I think I have some heade #includes why this moves
>>>> down in my file.
>>>>
>>>> None the less I still get trapped on that specific assert.
>>>>
>>>> Next question is of course why this code is what it is. Since once the
>>>> assert triggers, the remainder does not get executed.
>>>> Unless compiled with NDEBUG, then only the warning gets printed.
>>>> But the other asserts never get triggered.
>>>>
>>>> So back to my original question, Why have this very stringent test and
>>>> than in test/buffer.cc forgo the fact that this could/should be aligned.
>>>>
>>>> --WjW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2015-12-16 7:56 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm receiving traps when running the tests going with 'gmake check'
>>>>>> and on one of the tests it traps on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> os/FileJournal.cc:1036
>>>>>> void FileJournal::align_bl(off64_t pos, bufferlist& bl)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     // make sure list segments are page aligned
>>>>>>     if (directio && (!bl.is_aligned(block_size) ||
>>>>>>                      !bl.is_n_align_sized(CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE))) {
>>>>>>       assert(0 == "bl should be align");
>>>>>>       if ((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0 ||
>>>>>>           (pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0)
>>>>>>         dout(0) << "rebuild_page_aligned failed, " << bl << dendl;
>>>>>>       assert((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>>>>>       assert((pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>>>>>     }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then I get confused with the following commit in other tests:
>>>>>> commit 8ed724222651812c2ee8cc3804dc1f54c973897d
>>>>>> Author: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>>>>>> Date:   Fri Sep 4 01:23:31 2015 +0800
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       test/bufferlist: do not expect !is_page_aligned() after unaligned
>>>>>> rebuild
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       if the size of a bufferlist is page aligned we allocate page
>>>>>> aligned
>>>>>>       memory chunk for it when rebuild() is called. otherwise we just
>>>>>> call
>>>>>>       the plain new() to allocate new memory chunk for holding the
>>>>>> continuous
>>>>>>       buffer. but we should not expect that `new` allocator always
>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>       unaligned memory chunks. instead, it *could* return page aligned
>>>>>>       memory chunk as long as the allocator feels appropriate. so, the
>>>>>>       `EXPECT_FALSE(bl.is_page_aligned())` after the `rebuild()` call is
>>>>>>       removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could these 2 be related, and do I have an alignment problem when
>>>>>> allocating buffers and bufferlists....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that I also have not solved the illegal writes to _len in
>>>>>> bufferlists when running unittest_erasure_code_shec_arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So any suggestions as to where to look at for this, are welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --WjW
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel"
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: FreeBSD is receiving traps on os/FileJournal.cc:1036

[Willem Jan Withagen]

On 16-12-2015 13:51, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
> Would you mind create an issue in http://tracker.ceph.com/ and tell me
> how to reproduce the bug?

http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14095

Not sure if the description is enough to actually to reproduce the assert.

--WjW

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 2015-12-16 18:26 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>> On 16-12-2015 10:40, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
>>>
>>> Because we use the new strategy for filejournal in master branch. the
>>> write entry submit to writeq is aligned already.
>>> So if assert at this line, this strategy should have bug.
>>>
>>> I do not know why you have some heads #include, Maybe you modify the
>>> logic in filejournal?
>>
>>
>> No, the adds I've done are to work around the fact that the linux_version
>> stuff
>> is not really going to work for FreeBSD. Not the test, nor the resulting
>> code.
>>
>> So the header part of the file  now looks like:
>> #include "common/blkdev.h"
>> #if defined(__linux__)
>> #include "common/linux_version.h"
>> #endif
>>
>> #if defined(__FreeBSD__)
>> #include "common/freebsd_version.h"
>> #define O_DSYNC O_SYNC
>> #endif
>>
>> The remainder of the diffs are about locking when using aio, which i do not
>> ATM.
>>
>> So never say never with software, but I think I've left the logic as it
>> is/was.
>>
>> --WjW
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2015-12-16 17:20 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>>>>
>>>> On 16-12-2015 02:57, Xinze Chi (信泽) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean your ceph assert(0 == "bl should be align"), right?
>>>>>
>>>>> But in master branch, the 1036 line is not assert(0 == "bl should be
>>>>> align").
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes you are correct. I think I have some heade #includes why this moves
>>>> down in my file.
>>>>
>>>> None the less I still get trapped on that specific assert.
>>>>
>>>> Next question is of course why this code is what it is. Since once the
>>>> assert triggers, the remainder does not get executed.
>>>> Unless compiled with NDEBUG, then only the warning gets printed.
>>>> But the other asserts never get triggered.
>>>>
>>>> So back to my original question, Why have this very stringent test and
>>>> than in test/buffer.cc forgo the fact that this could/should be aligned.
>>>>
>>>> --WjW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2015-12-16 7:56 GMT+08:00 Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm receiving traps when running the tests going with 'gmake check'
>>>>>> and on one of the tests it traps on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> os/FileJournal.cc:1036
>>>>>> void FileJournal::align_bl(off64_t pos, bufferlist& bl)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    // make sure list segments are page aligned
>>>>>>    if (directio && (!bl.is_aligned(block_size) ||
>>>>>>                     !bl.is_n_align_sized(CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE))) {
>>>>>>      assert(0 == "bl should be align");
>>>>>>      if ((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0 ||
>>>>>>          (pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) != 0)
>>>>>>        dout(0) << "rebuild_page_aligned failed, " << bl << dendl;
>>>>>>      assert((bl.length() & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>>>>>      assert((pos & (CEPH_MINIMUM_BLOCK_SIZE - 1)) == 0);
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then I get confused with the following commit in other tests:
>>>>>> commit 8ed724222651812c2ee8cc3804dc1f54c973897d
>>>>>> Author: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>>>>>> Date:   Fri Sep 4 01:23:31 2015 +0800
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      test/bufferlist: do not expect !is_page_aligned() after unaligned
>>>>>> rebuild
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      if the size of a bufferlist is page aligned we allocate page
>>>>>> aligned
>>>>>>      memory chunk for it when rebuild() is called. otherwise we just
>>>>>> call
>>>>>>      the plain new() to allocate new memory chunk for holding the
>>>>>> continuous
>>>>>>      buffer. but we should not expect that `new` allocator always
>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>      unaligned memory chunks. instead, it *could* return page aligned
>>>>>>      memory chunk as long as the allocator feels appropriate. so, the
>>>>>>      `EXPECT_FALSE(bl.is_page_aligned())` after the `rebuild()` call is
>>>>>>      removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could these 2 be related, and do I have an alignment problem when
>>>>>> allocating buffers and bufferlists....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that I also have not solved the illegal writes to _len in
>>>>>> bufferlists when running unittest_erasure_code_shec_arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So any suggestions as to where to look at for this, are welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --WjW
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel"
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html