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

fio crashes at runtime on kernel 6.6



Followup-For: Bug #1059937
Package: fio
Version: 3.36-1

Hello,

Now that Debian ships a 6.6 kernel on riscv64, this bug also manifests
itself at runtime with the existing 3.36-1 fio package:

    # fio --name cfarm93 --rw=randwrite --filename=/home/500G.bin --direct=1 --blocksize=4K --iodepth=1 --numjobs=16 --ioengine=posixaio --runtime 3600 --group_reporting; fio --name cfarm93 --rw=randread --filename=/home/500G.bin --direct=1 --blocksize=4K --iodepth=1 --numjobs=16 --ioengine=posixaio --runtime 3600 --group_reporting
    cfarm93: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=(R) 4096B-4096B, (W) 4096B-4096B, (T) 4096B-4096B, ioengine=posixaio, iodepth=1
    ...
    fio-3.36
    Illegal instruction

    # dmesg
    [  937.305609] fio[6695]: unhandled signal 4 code 0x1 at 0x0000002aac37f468 in fio[2aac355000+bd000]
    [  937.314529] CPU: 1 PID: 6695 Comm: fio Not tainted 6.6.0-starfive2 #1
    [  937.320973] Hardware name: StarFive VisionFive 2 v1.3B (DT)

The kernel I run (see below) is slightly patched from Debian 6.6 kernel to
add PCIe support on VisionFive 2, but should not be significantly different.

Thanks,
Baptiste

-- System Information:
Debian Release: trixie/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: riscv64

Kernel: Linux 6.6.0-starfive2 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages fio depends on:
ii  init-system-helpers  1.66
ii  libaio1              0.3.113-5
ii  libc6                2.37-13
ii  libgfapi0            11.1-4
ii  libibverbs1          48.0-1
ii  libnbd0              1.18.2-1
ii  libnuma1             2.0.16-1
ii  librados2            16.2.11+ds-5
ii  librbd1              16.2.11+ds-5
ii  librdmacm1           48.0-1
ii  python3              3.11.6-1
ii  zlib1g               1:1.3.dfsg-3+b1


Reply to: