Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 20:35:35 -0700 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: "vangyzen@freebsd.org" <vangyzen@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r360233 - in head: contrib/jemalloc . . . : This partially breaks a 2-socket 32-bit powerpc (old PowerMac G4) based on head -r360311 Message-ID: <695E6836-F860-4557-B7DE-CC1EDB347F18@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <17ACDA02-D7EF-4F26-874A-BB3E935CD072@yahoo.com> References: <C24EE1A1-FAED-42C2-8204-CA7B1D20A369@yahoo.com> <8479DD58-44F6-446A-9CA5-D01F0F7C1B38@yahoo.com> <17ACDA02-D7EF-4F26-874A-BB3E935CD072@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This note just reports things from looking at 2
.core files (mountd and rpcbind) from the new
jemalloc context's failures. May be someone that
knows more can get something out of it. I've
not included any of the prior message history.
For mountd:
Core was generated by `/usr/sbin/mountd -r'.
Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
#0 0x50235df0 in cache_bin_dalloc_easy (bin=3D<optimized out>, =
bin_info=3D<optimized out>, ptr=3D0x50049160) at =
/usr/src/contrib/jemalloc/include/jemalloc/internal/cache_bin.h:121
warning: Source file is more recent than executable.
121 if (unlikely(bin->ncached =3D=3D bin_info->ncached_max)) =
{
It turns out that bin_info traces back to:
cache_bin_t *bin =3D tcache_small_bin_get(tcache, =
alloc_ctx.szind);
cache_bin_info_t *bin_info =3D =
&tcache_bin_info[alloc_ctx.szind];
if (!cache_bin_dalloc_easy(bin, bin_info, ptr)) {
return false;
}
based on:
#define tcache_bin_info JEMALLOC_N(tcache_bin_info)
and:
# define JEMALLOC_N(n) __je_##n
But gdb reports:
(gdb) print __je_tcache_bin_info
$3 =3D (cache_bin_info_t *) 0x0
(gdb) print alloc_ctx
$1 =3D {szind =3D 0, slab =3D <synthetic pointer>}
so bin_info =3D NULL and bin_info->ncached_max would
fail (and does).
By contrast, bin->ncached seems to be from:
(gdb) print *(cache_bin_t*)0x50094018
$6 =3D {low_water =3D 65536, ncached =3D 1, tstats =3D {nrequests =3D =
4796680610075595179}, avail =3D 0x0}
For rpcbind:
Core was generated by `/usr/sbin/rpcbind'.
Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
#0 0x50243fec in rendezvous_request (xprt=3D<optimized out>, =
msg=3D<optimized out>) at /usr/src/lib/libc/rpc/svc_vc.c:323
323 newxprt->xp_raddr =3D *(struct sockaddr_in =
*)newxprt->xp_rtaddr.buf;
(gdb) print *newxprt
$5 =3D {xp_fd =3D 14, xp_port =3D 0, xp_ops =3D 0x50329e1c, xp_addrlen =3D=
0, xp_raddr =3D {sin_len =3D 0 '\000', sin_family =3D 0 '\000', =
sin_port =3D 0, sin_addr =3D {s_addr =3D 0},=20
sin_zero =3D "\000\000\000\000P1O\374"}, xp_ops2 =3D 0x50329e34, =
xp_tp =3D 0x0, xp_netid =3D 0x50047310 "unix", xp_ltaddr =3D {maxlen =3D =
1345322064, len =3D 1970170232, buf =3D 0x2020}, xp_rtaddr =3D {
maxlen =3D 268500992, len =3D 16, buf =3D 0x0}, xp_verf =3D =
{oa_flavor =3D 0, oa_base =3D 0x202d2020 <error: Cannot access memory at =
address 0x202d2020>, oa_length =3D 538976364}, xp_p1 =3D 0x6f6f7000,=20
xp_p2 =3D 0x0, xp_p3 =3D 0x202d2020, xp_type =3D 538976288}
so newxprt->xp_rtaddr.buf =3D=3D 0x0 . But taht is very odd . . .
/*
* make a new transporter (re-uses xprt)
*/
newxprt =3D makefd_xprt(sock, r->sendsize, r->recvsize);
newxprt->xp_rtaddr.buf =3D mem_alloc(len);
if (newxprt->xp_rtaddr.buf =3D=3D NULL)
return (FALSE);
memcpy(newxprt->xp_rtaddr.buf, &addr, len);
newxprt->xp_rtaddr.len =3D len;
#ifdef PORTMAP
if (addr.ss_family =3D=3D AF_INET || addr.ss_family =3D=3D =
AF_LOCAL) {
newxprt->xp_raddr =3D *(struct sockaddr_in =
*)newxprt->xp_rtaddr.buf;
newxprt->xp_addrlen =3D sizeof (struct sockaddr_in);
}
#endif /* PORTMAP */
Or, in machine code terms:
0x50243f90 <+260>: mr r28,r3
0x50243f94 <+264>: lwz r4,0(r24)
0x50243f98 <+268>: lwz r5,4(r24)
0x50243f9c <+272>: mr r3,r28
0x50243fa0 <+276>: bl 0x5024308c <makefd_xprt>
0x50243fa4 <+280>: lwz r27,36(r1)
0x50243fa8 <+284>: mr r29,r3
0x50243fac <+288>: li r3,1
0x50243fb0 <+292>: mr r4,r27
0x50243fb4 <+296>: bl 0x502e3214 <00000000.plt_pic32.calloc>
0x50243fb8 <+300>: cmplwi r3,0
0x50243fbc <+304>: stw r3,64(r29)
0x50243fc0 <+308>: beq 0x50244160 <rendezvous_request+724>
Note: getting here means that newxprt->xp_rtaddr.buf
ws not NULL . Also the value was stored to 64(r29).
0x50243fc4 <+312>: addi r4,r1,296
0x50243fc8 <+316>: mr r5,r27
0x50243fcc <+320>: bl 0x502e3264 <00000000.plt_pic32.memcpy>
Note: getting here means that memcpy was able to
store where ewxprt->xp_rtaddr.buf indicated (as
the r3 value).
0x50243fd0 <+324>: lbz r3,297(r1)
0x50243fd4 <+328>: stw r27,60(r29)
0x50243fd8 <+332>: addi r3,r3,-1
0x50243fdc <+336>: clrlwi r3,r3,24
0x50243fe0 <+340>: cmplwi r3,1
0x50243fe4 <+344>: bgt 0x50244014 <rendezvous_request+392>
0x50243fe8 <+348>: lwz r3,64(r29)
=3D> 0x50243fec <+352>: lwz r4,0(r3)
Note: the failure was above with r3=3D=3D0x0:
(gdb) info reg
r0 0x50243fb8 1344552888
r1 0xffffb400 4294947840
r2 0x500a1018 1342836760
r3 0x0 0
r4 0xffffb538 4294948152
r5 0x10 16
r6 0x50047328 1342468904
r7 0x0 0
r8 0x50047324 1342468900
r9 0x0 0
r10 0x20 32
r11 0x502d691c 1345153308
r12 0x24200880 606079104
r13 0x0 0
r14 0x0 0
r15 0xffffbc28 4294949928
r16 0x10002848 268445768
r17 0x10040000 268697600
r18 0x2 2
r19 0x0 0
r20 0x1 1
r21 0x5004c044 1342488644
r22 0xffffb63c 4294948412
r23 0x80 128
r24 0x50048010 1342472208
r25 0x14 20
r26 0xffffb630 4294948400
r27 0x10 16
r28 0xe 14
r29 0x500472e0 1342468832
r30 0x5030112c 1345327404
r31 0x10040000 268697600
pc 0x50243fec 0x50243fec <rendezvous_request+352>
msr <unavailable>
cr 0x84200080 2216689792
lr 0x50243fd0 0x50243fd0 <rendezvous_request+324>
ctr 0x0 0
xer 0x0 0
fpscr 0x0 0
vscr <unavailable>
vrsave <unavailable>
Note: The rest of the 2 assignments would have been
done by:
0x50243ff0 <+356>: stw r4,16(r29)
0x50243ff4 <+360>: lwz r4,4(r3)
0x50243ff8 <+364>: stw r4,20(r29)
0x50243ffc <+368>: lwz r4,8(r3)
0x50244000 <+372>: stw r4,24(r29)
0x50244004 <+376>: li r4,16
0x50244008 <+380>: lwz r3,12(r3)
0x5024400c <+384>: stw r4,12(r29)
0x50244010 <+388>: stw r3,28(r29)
My only guesses for alternatives are:
A) A processor context switch where the other
processor did not (yet) see the value stored
via 64(r29) and so it used an older value.
B) Something trashed the memory at 64(r29)
after it was updated by the code above.
C) r29's value was trashed by something,
changing where 64(r29) referenced.
D) r3 was trashed between the two back-to-back
instructions:
0x50243fe8 <+348>: lwz r3,64(r29)
=3D> 0x50243fec <+352>: lwz r4,0(r3)
E) ???
I've no clue which.
Both .core files seem to have zero's showing up in
unexpected places previously non-zero.
=3D=3D=3D
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com
( dsl-only.net went
away in early 2018-Mar)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?695E6836-F860-4557-B7DE-CC1EDB347F18>