Re: [Valgrind-users] drd: drd_mutex.c:383 (mutex_unlock): Assertion 'p->mutex_type == mutex_type' failed

[Bart V. A. <bar...@gm...>]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Andy Howell <And...@au...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>        I'm seeing this with 3.4.1 compiled on fedora 9.
>
> Just before that I see:
>
> ==14457== Mutex reinitialization: mutex 0x4c621a8, recursion count 0, owner 0.
> ==14457==    at 0x4A0B4A4: pthread_mutex_init (in
> /usr/lib64/valgrind/amd64-linux/vgpreload_drd.so)
> ==14457==    by 0x546DCE: Mutex::create(Mutex::MutexType) (thread.cpp:1023)
> ==14457==    by 0x4DDA85: AsyncDNSImpl::init(Select*, ThreadAccess, unsigned int)
> (async_dns.cpp:1518)
> ==14457==    by 0x4DE47E: AsyncDNSImpl::create(Select*, EventManager*, ThreadAccess,
> unsigned int) (async_dns.cpp:87)
> ==14457==    by 0x4E2FAF: AsyncDNS::create(Select*, EventManager*, ThreadAccess, unsigned
> int) (async_dns.cpp:64)
> ==14457==    by 0x412809: Agent::init(int, char**) (agent.cpp:1838)
> ==14457==    by 0x414C77: main (agent.cpp:2559)
>
> ==14457== mutex 0x4c621a8 was first observed at:
> ==14457==    at 0x4A0B4A4: pthread_mutex_init (in
> /usr/lib64/valgrind/amd64-linux/vgpreload_drd.so)
> ==14457==    by 0x546D9E: Mutex::create(Mutex::MutexType) (thread.cpp:1002)
> ==14457==    by 0x4DDA85: AsyncDNSImpl::init(Select*, ThreadAccess, unsigned int)
> (async_dns.cpp:1518)
> ==14457==    by 0x4DE47E: AsyncDNSImpl::create(Select*, EventManager*, ThreadAccess,
> unsigned int) (async_dns.cpp:87)
> ==14457==    by 0x4E2FAF: AsyncDNS::create(Select*, EventManager*, ThreadAccess, unsigned
> int) (async_dns.cpp:64)
> ==14457==    by 0x412809: Agent::init(int, char**) (agent.cpp:1838)
> ==14457==    by 0x414C77: main (agent.cpp:2559)
>
> ==14457== ??? mutex 0x4c621a8: type changed from 3 into 1
>
> Looks like drd thinks the mutex type is changing from a default type to a recursive type
> mutex. I don't understand why it thinks the mutex is being re-initialized. Both call
> stacks contain the same functions and line numbers. In my code, this initialization is
> only done once. Any ideas?

Please look more carefully: the second call stack refers to file
thread.cpp, line 1002, while the first call stack refers to file
thread.cpp line 1023. So the above message most likely reports what it
says: mutex reinitialization.

Bart.