CCI sock and cci_reject

[bosilca]

The use of cci_reject with sock leads to either a deadlock or a segfault. The same code works fine with verbs.

Here is a stack trace when it segfault (it doesn't always segfault, sometimes it just deadlock).
#0 0x00007f82f945da26 in sock_progress_queued (ep=0xa636a0)

at ../../../../../trunk/src/plugins/ctp/sock/ctp_sock_api.c:2218

#1 0x00007f82f945dd55 in sock_progress_sends (ep=0xa636a0)

at ../../../../../trunk/src/plugins/ctp/sock/ctp_sock_api.c:2419

#2 0x00007f82f946571f in sock_progress_thread (arg=0xa636a0)

at ../../../../../trunk/src/plugins/ctp/sock/ctp_sock_api.c:4940

#3 0x00007f82ffa91b50 in start_thread (arg=) at pthread_create.c:304

Digging deeper in the core, I think I identified the issue. When the rx (type cci_event_connect_request_t) event is created it is correctly initialized. On the cci_reject call, as no connection exists yet the newly created tx event is tagged with a connection set to NULL. If this event end up in the queues and gets processes later on by sock_progress_queued, the NULL connections is just asking for troubles.

[gvallee]

George, this problem should be fixed in my branch (gvallee/sock). There is also a test (src/tests/connect_reject.c) to test it. Let me know if you have any other problem. Thanks,

[scottatchley]

Guys, is this fixed?

Scott

[gvallee]

This segfault is fixed and pushed to master. I have another pending improvement related to reject.

[bosilca]

On the trunk I now have another issues which might be related to the way connections are released when using the sock device. I use mpi_ping.c but changed the startup size to 16k. At this message size the first message is using the rendez-vous protocol and thus forces an RDMA transfer from the beginning. I consistently get a segfault deep inside the CCI device, segfault triggered always by the CCI internal thread. The problem seems to be an incorrect connection pointer in what seems to be a legit sconn structures.

Here is a backtrace:
#0 0x0000000104aac01b in cci_conn_is_reliable (conn=0x3000000000000000) at cci_lib_types.h:145
#1 0x0000000104ab21d6 in pack_piggyback_ack (ep=0x7f8c0ac636f0, sconn=0x7f8c0c003690, tx=0x104af9000) at ctp_sock_api.c:2169
#2 0x0000000104ab1d42 in sock_progress_pending (ep=0x7f8c0ac636f0) at ctp_sock_api.c:2106
#3 0x0000000104ab2eaa in sock_progress_sends (ep=0x7f8c0ac636f0) at ctp_sock_api.c:2467
#4 0x0000000104abaed0 in sock_progress_thread (arg=0x7f8c0ac636f0) at ctp_sock_api.c:5070
#5 0x00007fff8c239742 in _pthread_start ()
#6 0x00007fff8c226181 in thread_start ()

[scottatchley]

George,

Can you try with tcp as well?

Geoffroy, can you take a look at this?

Scott

On May 22, 2013, at 3:30 PM, bosilca notifications@github.com wrote:

On the trunk I now have another issues which might be related to the way connections are released when using the sock device. I use mpi_ping.c but changed the startup size to 16k. At this message size the first message is using the rendez-vous protocol and thus forces an RDMA transfer from the beginning. I consistently get a segfault deep inside the CCI device, segfault triggered always by the CCI internal thread. The problem seems to be an incorrect connection pointer in what seems to be a legit sconn structures.

Here is a backtrace:
#0 0x0000000104aac01b in cci_conn_is_reliable (conn=0x3000000000000000) at cci_lib_types.h:145
#1 0x0000000104ab21d6 in pack_piggyback_ack (ep=0x7f8c0ac636f0, sconn=0x7f8c0c003690, tx=0x104af9000) at ctp_sock_api.c:2169
#2 0x0000000104ab1d42 in sock_progress_pending (ep=0x7f8c0ac636f0) at ctp_sock_api.c:2106
#3 0x0000000104ab2eaa in sock_progress_sends (ep=0x7f8c0ac636f0) at ctp_sock_api.c:2467
#4 0x0000000104abaed0 in sock_progress_thread (arg=0x7f8c0ac636f0) at ctp_sock_api.c:5070
#5 0x00007fff8c239742 in _pthread_start ()
#6 0x00007fff8c226181 in thread_start ()

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[bosilca]

Works fine with TCP. There seems to be some data scrambling on the wire, I'll take a look at this using TCP until the sock is fixed.

[gvallee]

I just tried with my branch and did not get any segfault. I will try with master in a moment.
BTW, the BTL code with the sock transport sometimes tries to send more data than it is allowed to.

[bosilca]

The behavior I described in the ticket was with the master.

I would definitively be interested in hearing about the case when it sends more data. Can you please elaborate a little bit on the circumstances when this happens?

Thanks,
George.

On May 22, 2013, at 17:45 , gvallee notifications@github.com wrote:

I just tried with my branch and did not get any segfault. I will try with master in a moment.
BTW, the BTL code with the sock transport sometimes tries to send more data than it is allowed to.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[gvallee]

I cannot elaborate much more yet since the overall behavior of the test is not consistent from one run to another, which make debugging more difficult. As soon as i have more details, i will put them here. Also, i will very soon push to my branch a few modifications to the sock transport that correctly handles the situation: it returns an error if the payload size is too big.