jemalloc 3.5.0 regressions on i586
ismail at donmez.ws
Wed Jan 29 04:28:24 PST 2014
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Jason Evans <jasone at canonware.com> wrote:
> The stats failures are all due to mallctl argument size mismatches, fixed
> > test_oom_errors:test/integration/aligned_alloc.c:59: Failed assertion:
> (p != ((void *)0) || je_get_errno() != 12) == (false) --> true != false:
> > test_alignment_errors:test/integration/mallocx.c:53: Failed assertion:
> (p) == (NULL) --> 0x40000000 != 0x0: test_alignment_errors
> > test_oom_errors:test/integration/posix_memalign.c:53: Failed assertion:
> (posix_memalign(&p, alignment, size)) != (0) --> 0 == 0: test_oom_errors
> > 64bit builds are fine.
> Wow, the machine is actually satisfying an mmap() request of size
> 0xd0000000 (3.5 GiB) in order for this to be happening. The tests are
> flawed, and they "pass" on 64-bit systems because of the virtual memory
> hole in the middle of the 64-bit address space. Fixed here:
> In the case of mallocx(), this is technically undefined territory, so just
> removed that test, but for aligned_alloc() and posix_memalign(), I
> increased the request size enough to guarantee failure.
> In summary, these failures are all due to test bugs, rather than bugs in
> the library itself.
After addings these two patches I have 2 new failures:
thd_start:test/unit/prof_accum.c:83: Failed assertion:
(bt_count_prev+(i-i_prev)) <= (bt_count) --> 6 > 1: thd_start
[test_alignment_errors:test/integration/allocm.c:60: Failed assertion:
(allocm(&p, &rsz, sz, (ffs(alignment)-1))) != (0) --> 0 == 0:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the jemalloc-discuss