[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5208?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Tolga HOŞGÖR updated IGNITE-5208:
---------------------------------
Description:
The following segfault happens when:
- using multiple caches (suffixed with number as in X_\{number\}),
- caches contain same type of object but not the same objects,
- doing multithreaded `::Put` operation, only one put is done on each cache
concurrently, independent caches (X_1, X_2, ...) can be operated on and called
`::Put` on concurrently, but that should not be relevant as cache api is thread
safe.
{code:none}
C [test+0xf8116a] std::less<int>::operator()(int const&, int const&)
const+0x14
C [test+0x1106305] std::_Rb_tree<int, std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
>, std::_Select1st<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> >, std::less<int>, std::allocator<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > >::_M_lower_bound(std::_Rb_tree_node<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> >*, std::_Rb_tree_node_base*, int const&)+0x41
C [test+0x1105a9d] std::_Rb_tree<int, std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
>, std::_Select1st<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> >, std::less<int>, std::allocator<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > >::find(int const&)+0x45
C [test+0x1104e7f] std::map<int,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>,
std::less<int>, std::allocator<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > >::find(int const&)+0x23
C [test+0x1104031]
ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeManager::GetHandler(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&, int)+0x6f
C [test+0xe6de2d] void
ignite::impl::binary::BinaryWriterImpl::WriteTopObject<std::shared_ptr<test::data>
>(std::shared_ptr<test::data> const&)+0xbb
C [test+0xe6cd48] ignite::impl::In2Operation<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, std::shared_ptr<test::data>
>::ProcessInput(ignite::impl::binary::BinaryWriterImpl&)+0x3e
C [test+0x1128cf1]
ignite::impl::interop::InteropTarget::WriteTo(ignite::impl::interop::InteropMemory*,
ignite::impl::InputOperation&, ignite::IgniteError&)+0xa9
C [test+0x1128f67] ignite::impl::interop::InteropTarget::OutOp(int,
ignite::impl::InputOperation&, ignite::IgniteError&)+0x65
C [test+0x1125f41]
ignite::impl::cache::CacheImpl::Put(ignite::impl::InputOperation&,
ignite::IgniteError&)+0x2d
C [test+0xe5539a] ignite::cache::Cache<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, std::shared_ptr<test::data>
>::Put(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>,
std::allocator<char> > const&, std::shared_ptr<test::data> const&,
ignite::IgniteError&)+0x52
{code}
There seems to be some kind of race situation:
{code:none}
0x0000000001381206 in std::less<int>::operator() (this=0x1a4e4b0, __x=<error
reading variable>, __y=@0x7fff80846e04: 2066246303) at
/usr/include/c++/6.3.1/bits/stl_function.h:386
{code}
{code:none}
#4 0x00000000015040cd in ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeManager::GetHandler
(this=0x1a560d0, typeName="test.data", typeId=2066246303) at
src/impl/binary/binary_type_manager.cpp:56
56 std::map<int32_t, SPSnap>::iterator it =
snapshots0.find(typeId);
(gdb) print snapshots0
$10 = std::map with 42286576 elements = {[42312864] = {ptr = 0x285a4a0, impl =
0x0}<error reading variable: Cannot access memory at address 0x110>...}
(gdb) print snapshot
$11 = {ptr = 0x7fffffffda4f, impl = 0x11}
{code}
`impl` pointers seems to be corrupted on multiple places. Why aren't you using
`std::shared_ptr` instead of your own concurrent shared pointer?
was:
The following segfault happens when:
- using multiple caches (suffixed with number as in X_\{number\}),
- caches contain same type of object but not the same objects,
- doing multithreaded `::Put` operation, only one put is done on each cache
concurrently, independent caches (X_1, X_2, ...) can be operated on and called
`::Put` on concurrently, but that should not be relevant as cache api is thread
safe.
{code:none}
C [test+0xf8116a] std::less<int>::operator()(int const&, int const&)
const+0x14
C [test+0x1106305] std::_Rb_tree<int, std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
>, std::_Select1st<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> >, std::less<int>, std::allocator<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > >::_M_lower_bound(std::_Rb_tree_node<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> >*, std::_Rb_tree_node_base*, int const&)+0x41
C [test+0x1105a9d] std::_Rb_tree<int, std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
>, std::_Select1st<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> >, std::less<int>, std::allocator<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > >::find(int const&)+0x45
C [test+0x1104e7f] std::map<int,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>,
std::less<int>, std::allocator<std::pair<int const,
ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > >::find(int const&)+0x23
C [test+0x1104031]
ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeManager::GetHandler(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&, int)+0x6f
C [test+0xe6de2d] void
ignite::impl::binary::BinaryWriterImpl::WriteTopObject<std::shared_ptr<test::data>
>(std::shared_ptr<test::data> const&)+0xbb
C [test+0xe6cd48] ignite::impl::In2Operation<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, std::shared_ptr<test::data>
>::ProcessInput(ignite::impl::binary::BinaryWriterImpl&)+0x3e
C [test+0x1128cf1]
ignite::impl::interop::InteropTarget::WriteTo(ignite::impl::interop::InteropMemory*,
ignite::impl::InputOperation&, ignite::IgniteError&)+0xa9
C [test+0x1128f67] ignite::impl::interop::InteropTarget::OutOp(int,
ignite::impl::InputOperation&, ignite::IgniteError&)+0x65
C [test+0x1125f41]
ignite::impl::cache::CacheImpl::Put(ignite::impl::InputOperation&,
ignite::IgniteError&)+0x2d
C [test+0xe5539a] ignite::cache::Cache<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, std::shared_ptr<test::data>
>::Put(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>,
std::allocator<char> > const&, std::shared_ptr<test::data> const&,
ignite::IgniteError&)+0x52
{code}
There seems to be some kind of race situation:
{code:none}
0x0000000001381206 in std::less<int>::operator() (this=0x1a4e4b0, __x=<error
reading variable>, __y=@0x7fff80846e04: 2066246303) at
/usr/include/c++/6.3.1/bits/stl_function.h:386
{code}
{code:none}
#4 0x00000000015040cd in ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeManager::GetHandler
(this=0x1a560d0, typeName="test.data", typeId=2066246303) at
src/impl/binary/binary_type_manager.cpp:56
56 std::map<int32_t, SPSnap>::iterator it =
snapshots0.find(typeId);
(gdb) print snapshots0
$10 = std::map with 42286576 elements = {[42312864] = {ptr = 0x285a4a0, impl =
0x0}<error reading variable: Cannot access memory at address 0x110>...}
(gdb) print snapshot
$11 = {ptr = 0x7fffffffda4f, impl = 0x11}
{code}
> C++ Segfault on Put
> -------------------
>
> Key: IGNITE-5208
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5208
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: cache
> Affects Versions: 2.0
> Reporter: Tolga HOŞGÖR
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: c++
>
> The following segfault happens when:
> - using multiple caches (suffixed with number as in X_\{number\}),
> - caches contain same type of object but not the same objects,
> - doing multithreaded `::Put` operation, only one put is done on each cache
> concurrently, independent caches (X_1, X_2, ...) can be operated on and
> called `::Put` on concurrently, but that should not be relevant as cache api
> is thread safe.
> {code:none}
> C [test+0xf8116a] std::less<int>::operator()(int const&, int const&)
> const+0x14
> C [test+0x1106305] std::_Rb_tree<int, std::pair<int const,
> ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> >, std::_Select1st<std::pair<int const,
> ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > >, std::less<int>, std::allocator<std::pair<int const,
> ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > > >::_M_lower_bound(std::_Rb_tree_node<std::pair<int const,
> ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > >*, std::_Rb_tree_node_base*, int const&)+0x41
> C [test+0x1105a9d] std::_Rb_tree<int, std::pair<int const,
> ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> >, std::_Select1st<std::pair<int const,
> ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > >, std::less<int>, std::allocator<std::pair<int const,
> ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > > >::find(int const&)+0x45
> C [test+0x1104e7f] std::map<int,
> ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>,
> std::less<int>, std::allocator<std::pair<int const,
> ignite::common::concurrent::SharedPointer<ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeSnapshot>
> > > >::find(int const&)+0x23
> C [test+0x1104031]
> ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeManager::GetHandler(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
> std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&, int)+0x6f
> C [test+0xe6de2d] void
> ignite::impl::binary::BinaryWriterImpl::WriteTopObject<std::shared_ptr<test::data>
> >(std::shared_ptr<test::data> const&)+0xbb
> C [test+0xe6cd48]
> ignite::impl::In2Operation<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
> std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, std::shared_ptr<test::data>
> >::ProcessInput(ignite::impl::binary::BinaryWriterImpl&)+0x3e
> C [test+0x1128cf1]
> ignite::impl::interop::InteropTarget::WriteTo(ignite::impl::interop::InteropMemory*,
> ignite::impl::InputOperation&, ignite::IgniteError&)+0xa9
> C [test+0x1128f67] ignite::impl::interop::InteropTarget::OutOp(int,
> ignite::impl::InputOperation&, ignite::IgniteError&)+0x65
> C [test+0x1125f41]
> ignite::impl::cache::CacheImpl::Put(ignite::impl::InputOperation&,
> ignite::IgniteError&)+0x2d
> C [test+0xe5539a] ignite::cache::Cache<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
> std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, std::shared_ptr<test::data>
> >::Put(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>,
> std::allocator<char> > const&, std::shared_ptr<test::data> const&,
> ignite::IgniteError&)+0x52
> {code}
> There seems to be some kind of race situation:
> {code:none}
> 0x0000000001381206 in std::less<int>::operator() (this=0x1a4e4b0, __x=<error
> reading variable>, __y=@0x7fff80846e04: 2066246303) at
> /usr/include/c++/6.3.1/bits/stl_function.h:386
> {code}
> {code:none}
> #4 0x00000000015040cd in ignite::impl::binary::BinaryTypeManager::GetHandler
> (this=0x1a560d0, typeName="test.data", typeId=2066246303) at
> src/impl/binary/binary_type_manager.cpp:56
> 56 std::map<int32_t, SPSnap>::iterator it =
> snapshots0.find(typeId);
> (gdb) print snapshots0
> $10 = std::map with 42286576 elements = {[42312864] = {ptr = 0x285a4a0, impl
> = 0x0}<error reading variable: Cannot access memory at address 0x110>...}
> (gdb) print snapshot
> $11 = {ptr = 0x7fffffffda4f, impl = 0x11}
> {code}
> `impl` pointers seems to be corrupted on multiple places. Why aren't you
> using `std::shared_ptr` instead of your own concurrent shared pointer?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
