Are you making any calls modifying the len that would allow GC to occur, or change stack size? You might need to pin the Go routine so that the operation you are performing is “atomic” with respect to those.
This also sounds very scary if the Go runtime every had a compacting collector. > On Mar 22, 2019, at 12:27 AM, Tom <hyper...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The allocation is in go, and assembly never modifies the size of the backing > array. Assembly only ever modifies len, which is the len of the slice and not > the backing array. > >> On Thursday, 21 March 2019 22:18:29 UTC-7, Tamás Gulácsi wrote: >> 2019. március 22., péntek 6:06:06 UTC+1 időpontban Tom a következőt írta: >>> >>> Still errors I'm afraid :/ >>> >>>> On Thursday, 21 March 2019 21:54:59 UTC-7, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:39 PM Tom <hype...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I've been stuck on this for a few days so thought I would ask the brains >>>> > trust. >>>> > >>>> > TL;DR: When I have native amd64 instructions mutating (updating the len >>>> > + values of a []uint64) a slice, I experience spurious & random memory >>>> > corruption when under heavy load (# runnable goroutines > MAXPROCS, >>>> > doing the same thing continuously), and only when the GC is enabled. Any >>>> > debugging ideas or things I should look into? >>>> > >>>> > Background: >>>> > >>>> > I'm calling into go assembly with a few pointers to slices (*[]uint64), >>>> > and that assembly is mutating them (reading/writing values, updating len >>>> > within capacity). I'm experiencing random memory corruption, but I can >>>> > only trigger it in the following scenarios: >>>> > >>>> > Heavy load - Doing a zillion things at once (specifically running all my >>>> > test cases in parallel) and maxing out my machine. >>>> > Parallelism - A panic due to memory corruption happens faster if >>>> > --parallel is set higher, and never if not in parallel. >>>> > GC - The panic never happens if the GC is disabled (of course, the test >>>> > process eventually runs out of memory). >>>> > >>>> > The memory corruption varies, but usually results in an element of an >>>> > unrelated slice being zero'ed, the len of a unrelated slice being >>>> > zeroed, or (less likely) a segfault. >>>> > >>>> > Tested on go1.11.2 and go1.12.1. I can only trigger this if I run all my >>>> > test cases at once (with --count at 8000 or so & using t.Parallel()). >>>> > Running thing serially or individually yields the correct behaviour. >>>> > >>>> > The assembly in question looks like this: >>>> > >>>> > TEXT ·jitcall(SB),NOSPLIT|NOFRAME,$0-24 >>>> > GO_ARGS >>>> > MOVQ asm+0(FP), AX // Load the address of the assembly >>>> > section. >>>> > MOVQ stack+8(FP), R10 // Load the address of the 1st slice. >>>> > MOVQ locals+16(FP), R11 // Load the address of the 2nd slice. >>>> > MOVQ 0(AX), AX // Deference pointer to native code. >>>> > JMP AX // Jump to native code. >>>> > >>>> > And slice manipulation like this (this is a 'pop'): >>>> > >>>> > MOVQ r13, [r10+8] // Load the length of the slice. >>>> > DECQ r13 // Decrements the len (I can guarantee this >>>> > will never underflow). >>>> > MOVQ r12, [r10] // Load the 0th element address. >>>> > LEAQ r12, [r12 + r13*8] // Compute the address of the last element. >>>> > MOVQ reg, [r12] // Load the element to reg. >>>> > MOVQ [r10+8], r13 // Write the len back. >>>> > >>>> > or 'push' like this (note: cap is always large enough for any pushes) >>>> > ... >>>> > >>>> > MOVQ r12, [r10] // Load the 0th element address. >>>> > MOVQ r13, [r10+8] // Load the len. >>>> > LEAQ r12, [r12 + r13*8] // Compute the address of the last element >>>> > + 1. >>>> > INCQ r13 // Increment the len. >>>> > MOVQ [r10+8], r13 // Save the len. >>>> > MOVQ [r12], reg // Write the new element. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I acknowledge that calling into code like this is unsupported, but I >>>> > struggle to understand how such corruption can happen, and having stared >>>> > at it for a few days, I am frankly stumped. I mean, even if >>>> > non-cooperative preemption was in these versions of Go I would expect >>>> > the GC to abort when it cant find the stack maps for my RIP value. With >>>> > no GC safe points in my native assembly, I dont see how the GC could >>>> > interfere (yet the issue disappears with the GC off??). >>>> > >>>> > Questions: >>>> > >>>> > Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? >>>> > Any ideas how I can trace this from the application side and also the >>>> > runtime side? I've tried schedtrace and the like, but the output didnt >>>> > appear useful or correlated to the crashes. >>>> > Any suggestions for assumptions I might have missed and should write >>>> > tests / guards for? >>>> >>>> >> >> Do the allocation in Go, don't modify the slice's backing array's length >> outside of Go - the runtime won't know about it and happily allocate over >> the grown slice. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
