[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KUDU-400?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Todd Lipcon resolved KUDU-400.
------------------------------
       Resolution: Cannot Reproduce
    Fix Version/s: n/a

This is over two years old and was likely fixed by 
ed01385a7bbdc40161f93cd42da7f59301c2c06e.

> cbtree-test failure: pointer used most significant bit
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: KUDU-400
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KUDU-400
>             Project: Kudu
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: tablet
>    Affects Versions: M4.5
>            Reporter: Adar Dembo
>             Fix For: n/a
>
>         Attachments: cbtree-test.txt
>
>
> Ran into this while running through TSAN tests. Been trying to repro it 
> since, successfully did so once. The only difference in the test output the 
> second time around was the lack of "Check failed..."; everything else was the 
> same.
> {noformat}
> [==========] Running 15 tests from 1 test case.
> [----------] Global test environment set-up.
> [----------] 15 tests from TestCBTree
> [ RUN      ] TestCBTree.TestNodeSizes
> [       OK ] TestCBTree.TestNodeSizes (3 ms)
> [ RUN      ] TestCBTree.TestLeafNode
> [       OK ] TestCBTree.TestLeafNode (1 ms)
> [ RUN      ] TestCBTree.TestLeafNodeBigKVs
> [       OK ] TestCBTree.TestLeafNodeBigKVs (1 ms)
> [ RUN      ] TestCBTree.TestInsertAndVerify
> [       OK ] TestCBTree.TestInsertAndVerify (3503 ms)
> [ RUN      ] TestCBTree.TestUpdate
> [       OK ] TestCBTree.TestUpdate (8 ms)
> [ RUN      ] TestCBTree.TestInsertAndVerifyRandom
> [       OK ] TestCBTree.TestInsertAndVerifyRandom (179 ms)
> [ RUN      ] TestCBTree.TestVersionLockSimple
> [       OK ] TestCBTree.TestVersionLockSimple (0 ms)
> [ RUN      ] TestCBTree.TestVersionLockConcurrent
> [       OK ] TestCBTree.TestVersionLockConcurrent (223 ms)
> [ RUN      ] TestCBTree.TestConcurrentInsert
> WARNING: Logging before InitGoogleLogging() is written to STDERR
> F0715 15:24:21.590517 44200 concurrent_btree.h:408] Check failed: !(p_int & 
> kDiscriminatorBit) Pointer must not use most significant bit
> {noformat}
> What's weird is that the stacktrace that followed came from a SIGSEGV, not a 
> SIGABRT:
> {noformat}
> *** Aborted at 1405463061 (unix time) try "date -d @1405463061" if you are 
> using GNU date ***
> *** Check failure stack trace: ***
> PC: @     0x7f29556882ed __tsan_atomic64_load
> *** SIGSEGV (@0x18000001) received by PID 44174 (TID 0x7f294fffec40) from PID 
> 402653185; stack trace: ***
>     @     0x7f2955657114 rtl_sigaction() at ??:0
>     @     0x7f2954876340 (unknown) at ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556882ed __tsan_atomic64_load at ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556c9b36 base::subtle::Acquire_Load() at ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556c9a43 kudu::tablet::btree::VersionField::StableVersion() 
> at ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556ea5f1 kudu::tablet::btree::NodeBase<>::StableVersion() at 
> ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556ee599 kudu::tablet::btree::CBTree<>::StableRoot() at ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556edaec kudu::tablet::btree::CBTree<>::TraverseToLeaf() at 
> ??:0
>     @     0x7f295570412b kudu::tablet::btree::CBTree<>::PrepareMutation() at 
> ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556c09ed kudu::tablet::btree::PreparedMutation<>::Prepare() 
> at ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556bf521 kudu::tablet::btree::CBTree<>::Insert() at ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556f38e3 kudu::tablet::btree::InsertRange<>() at ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556c3cfb kudu::tablet::btree::InsertAndVerify<>() at ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556f2c45 boost::_bi::list5<>::operator()<>() at ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556f2a18 boost::_bi::bind_t<>::operator()() at ??:0
>     @     0x7f29556f299a boost::detail::thread_data<>::run() at ??:0
>     @     0x7f2954c93a4a (unknown) at ??:0
>     @     0x7f295564c3d5 __tsan_thread_start_func at ??:0
>     @     0x7f295486e182 start_thread at ??:0
>     @     0x7f295358d30d (unknown) at ??:0
>     @                0x0 (unknown)
> {noformat}
> I've attached the full test output. It has a bunch of warnings from TSAN 
> about signal-unsafe calls inside the signal handler which I think can be 
> ignored.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to