All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Xinze Chi (信泽)" <xmdxcxz@gmail.com>
To: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl>
Cc: Ceph Development <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD is receiving traps on os/FileJournal.cc:1036
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:33 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANE=7sU_R69V8cfUbZZFJiwE6YTd3LA_dLJHfK-n=5ymjwK4CA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56712CC2.90507@digiware.nl>

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

  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-16  9:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-12-15 23:56 FreeBSD is receiving traps on os/FileJournal.cc:1036 Willem Jan Withagen
2015-12-16  1:57 ` Xinze Chi (信泽)
2015-12-16  9:20   ` Willem Jan Withagen
2015-12-16  9:40     ` Xinze Chi (信泽) [this message]
2015-12-16 10:26       ` Willem Jan Withagen
2015-12-16 12:51         ` Xinze Chi (信泽)
2015-12-16 13:45           ` Willem Jan Withagen
2015-12-16 20:07           ` Willem Jan Withagen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CANE=7sU_R69V8cfUbZZFJiwE6YTd3LA_dLJHfK-n=5ymjwK4CA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=xmdxcxz@gmail.com \
    --cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wjw@digiware.nl \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.