[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [coreutils] multi-threaded sort can segfault (unrelated to the sort

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: [coreutils] multi-threaded sort can segfault (unrelated to the sort -u segfault)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:33:42 +0100

Jim Meyering wrote:
> With that, I've solved at least part of the problem.
> The segfault (and other strangeness we've witnessed)
> arises because each "node" struct is stored on the stack,
> and its address ends up being used by another thread after
> the thread that owns the stack in question has been "joined".
> My solution is to use the heap instead of the stack.
> However, for today I'm out of time and I have not yet found a
> way to free these newly-malloc'd "node" buffers.
> To test this, I've done the following:
> gensort -a 10000 > gensort-10k
> for i in $(seq 2000); do printf '% 4d\n' $i; valgrind --quiet src/sort -S 
> 100K \
>   --parallel=2 gensort-10k > k; test $(wc -c < k) = 1000000 || break; done
> for i in $(seq 2000); do printf '% 4d\n' $i; src/sort -S 100K \
>   --parallel=2 gensort-10k > j; test $(wc -c < j) = 1000000 || break; done
> Without the patch, the first would show errors for more than 50% of
> the runs and the second would rarely get to i=100 without generating
> a core file.  With the patch, both complete error-free (not counting
> leaks).

FYI, while preparing a test, I've found that the latter test
(without valgrind) passes 2000/2000 tests when compiled with -g -O2,
yet fails in at least 10 of the 2000 when compiled with -ggdb3.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]