On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Mark Millard wrote:

On Nov 25, 2024, at 18:05, Mark Millard <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Top posting going in a different direction that
established a way to control the behavior in my
context . . .

For folks new to the discoveries: the context here
is poudriere bulk builds, for USE_TMPFS=all vs.
USE_TMPFS=no . My test context is amd64 on a
7950X3D system with 192 GiBytes of RAM. Others have
other contexts, including an Intel system.

I have been seeing some odd behavior from Firefox as well as with poudriere builds on my system. Both of which are touching a tmpfs system as I have setup /tmp as tmpfs, which Firefox uses, and USE_TMPFS=all.

The system has been an experiment, for me, with undervolting. I have been attributing any flakiness to the undervolting, but I have reduced that a lot while the instability has been consistent as in it has stayed rare. I cannot tell how many times I have run memtest86 on this system.

System setup:
- FreeBSD 14.2-STABLE
- i7-14700K (latest BIOS which *should* fix Intel power-related bugs)
- 128 GiB RAM
- ZFS (mirrored drives)
- 2 encrypted swap partitions (64 GiB each, lightly used)
- Lightly undervolted (-0.06 offset to Global Core SVID Voltage)
- /tmp is tmpfs
- ${HOME}/.cache is tmpfs
- Poudriere:
  - USE_TMPFS=all
  - ccache
  - jail version in sync with host
  - /usr/ports is mounted with nullfs

I have wondered if it was swap-related, but recently I noticed a build failure with games/veloren-weekly where swap was available but zero bytes were used. The system was under little load at the time so less chance of undervolting being an issue.

Build failure:
-----------------------------

portpicker = { path = 
'/wrkdirs/usr/ports/games/veloren-weekly/work/portpicker-rs-df6b37872f3586ac3b21d08b56c8ec7cd92fb172'
 }
===>   Updating Cargo.lock
error: checksum for `windows_x86_64_msvc v0.42.2` changed between lock files

this could be indicative of a few possible errors:

    * the lock file is corrupt
    * a replacement source in use (e.g., a mirror) returned a different checksum
    * the source itself may be corrupt in one way or another

unable to verify that `windows_x86_64_msvc v0.42.2` is the same as when the 
lockfile was generated

*** Error code 101

-----------------------------

Restarting the build finished successfully.

I changed USE_TMPFS=all to USE_TMPFS=no :

USE_TMPFS=all gets the failure

*snip*

vs.
USE_TMPFS=no works just fine

So it is a FreeBSD system error associated with
use of tmpfs .

Recent work on tmpfs includes:

Mon, 09 Sep 2024
• git: 8fa5e0f21fd1 - main - tmpfs: Account for whiteouts during rename/rmdir 
Jason A. Harmening
Fri, 04 Oct 2024
• git: 75734c4360fc - main - tmpfs: check residence in data_locked Doug Moore
Sun, 13 Oct 2024
• git: ec22e705c266 - main - tmpfs: remove duplicate flags check in tmpfs_rmdir 
Alan Somers
Thu, 24 Oct 2024
• git: db08b0b04dec - main - tmpfs_vnops: move swap work to swap_pager Doug 
Moore

swap_pager (given the reference to it above):

Tue, 08 Oct 2024
   • git: d0b225d16418 - main - swap_pager: use iterators in 
swp_pager_meta_build Doug Moore
Fri, 11 Oct 2024
   • git: 1107834090be - main - swap_pager: swapoff detecting object death Doug 
Moore
Thu, 24 Oct 2024
   • git: 34951b0b9e78 - main - swap_pager: move scan_all_shadowed, use 
iterators Doug Moore
   • git: 02e85d1c8a41 - main - swap_pager: fix assert in seek_data Doug Moore
   • git: faa9356f97d2 - main - swap_pager: fix seek_hole assert Doug Moore
Sat, 26 Oct 2024
   • git: 39f6d1e7f835 - main - swap_pager: iter in haspage, lookup, getpages 
Doug Moore
Wed, 13 Nov 2024
   • git: d11d407aee48 - main - swap_pager: Ensure that swapoff puts swapped-in 
pages in page queues Mark Johnston

I do not know at this time when the corruptions started. The
above is only suggestive.

Thank you for listing those.

I need to find some time to look over those changes although I am no kernel guru by a long shot. However, I see now that it looks like much more knowledgeable people are already looking on the current mailing list at the issue.

Sean
--
s...@freebsd.org

Reply via email to