From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: fio newer than 2.2.12 segfaults on examples/tiobench-example.fio References: <569B9F48.3010808@cran.org.uk> <569D5FB4.6050602@kernel.dk> <56A05EDC.4030309@cran.org.uk> <56A05F80.7070903@kernel.dk> <56A0620D.6000204@cran.org.uk> <56A063DD.8040502@kernel.dk> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <56A0647C.6030607@kernel.dk> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:54:20 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56A063DD.8040502@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bruce Cran , fio@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/20/2016 09:51 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 01/20/2016 09:43 PM, Bruce Cran wrote: >> On 01/20/2016 09:33 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> Can you try and revert commit 09400a60042 and see if that fixes it? >> >> Yes, that does fix it. > > So it sounds like a double unlock issue, as per the bug report you also > referenced. > > Can you checkout out the 2.4 release again, and see if there are cases > where pthread_cond_timedwait() returns with the mutex unlocked already? > The man page states: > > "Upon successful return, the mutex shall have been locked and shall be > owned by the calling thread." > > but it's not clear if that's not the case for error return (eg timed out). Duh, nevermind: http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/fio/commit/?id=42e833fa08803ccea6c99df353398a7423845c51 -- Jens Axboe