[squid-users] FATAL: assertion failed: mem/PageStack.cc:159: "StoredNode().is_lock_free()"

[Nishant Sharma]

On 28/06/24 19:44, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> I do not know the answer to your question. SMP performance penalties are 
> often smaller for smaller cache sizes, but cache size is not the only 
> performance-affecting locking-sensitive parameter, so YMMV.

I was able to compile after commenting the specific line of code. Squid 
workers start and I am able to bind them to specific CPU cores.

I will do some extensive testing in the next few days in SMP and non-SMP 
mode before rolling the new version out in the field.
> Just to avoid a misunderstanding: Other than commenting out the 
> assertion line, no code removal is suggested in my bulleted list quoted 
> above. The first bullet is a speculative "remove the assertion and see 
> what happens" experiment. The second bullet is about reviewing existing 
> code (without code modifications) to validate the need for that 
> assertion. That audit/validation is required to remove the assertion 
> from official Squid sources. That need (and that decision) do not depend 
> on cache sizes and other deployment specifics.

I have already acted on first of the bulleted suggestion items list :)

For the next two, I can run tests on these devices under various 
workloads and scenarios, if that helps in validation and further 
decision making.

Thanks again for your help.

Regards,
Nishant