Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] fix size parameter in calls to numa_node_to_cpus

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 07:43:01PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 01:56:47PM -0500, Dave Allan wrote: > > I was getting the error: > > > > map size mismatch; abort > > > > when running the daemon-conf tests. > > > > I traced it to two places in which we were passing a parameter as a > > number of bits to numa_node_to_cpus which expects a number of bytes (see > > numa_node_to_cpus_compat in numa.h in the numactl source). > > I'm still very puzzelled by this. What OS and architecture are you > running on ? > > I'm using Fedora 10, x86_64 and don't see any messages with current > CVS and it returns NUMA info correctlys (as per virsh capabilities) I saw the problem too on one machine, it broke make check , coincidentally it s also an F-10 x86_64 :-) 138) xml2sexprdata/xml2sexpr-fv-sound.xml OK Validated 138 files, 0 failed PASS: domainschematest 1) fc4.conf ... OK 2) libvirtd.conf ... OK PASS: test_conf.sh PASS: cpuset /u/veillard/libvirt/tests/daemon-conf-30173 testing with corrupted config: listen_tls --- expected-err 2008-12-12 11:30:30.000000000 +0100 +++ err 2008-12-12 11:30:30.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,5 @@ +map size mismatch; abort +: Success +umlStartup: out of memory remoteReadConfigFile: in1.conf: listen_tls: invalid type: got string; expected long testing with corrupted config: listen_tcp --- expected-err 2008-12-12 11:30:30.000000000 +0100 +++ err 2008-12-12 11:30:30.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,5 @@ +map size mismatch; abort +: Success +umlStartup: out of memory remoteReadConfigFile: in2.conf: listen_tcp: invalid type: got string; expected long testing with corrupted config: tls_port --- expected-err 2008-12-12 11:30:30.000000000 +0100 +++ err 2008-12-12 11:30:30.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,5 @@ +map size mismatch; abort +: Success +umlStartup: out of memory remoteReadConfigFile: in3.conf: tls_port: invalid type: got long; expected string testing with corrupted config: tcp_port etc .... and with the patch everything works again on that machine (Intel core duo with 2GB memory). Still I hope we were not allocating a gigabyte of memory for that call (if yes there is a serious fix needed even with a factor of 8 less). So applied and commited, thanks a lot, but I'm still puzzled, why did we end out of memory, I will look quickly