Issue metadata
Sign in to add a comment
|
Blink.Compositing.LayerPromotionCount.Overlap Has Conflicting Types |
||||||||||||||||||||
Issue descriptionChrome Version: 64.0.3254.2 OS: Android Here's the earliest crash I've found: https://crash.corp.google.com/browse?q=product.Version%3E%3D%2764.0%27%20AND%20product.Version%20LIKE%20%27__.%25.%25.%25%27%20AND%20product.name%20CONTAINS%20%27Chrome%27%20AND%20custom_data.ChromeCrashProto.magic_signature_1.component%3D%27src%2Fbase%2Fmetrics%27%20AND%20custom_data.ChromeCrashProto.magic_signature_1.name%3D%27base%3A%3AHistogram%3A%3AFactory%3A%3ABuild%27&sql_dialect=dremelsql&ignore_case=false&enable_rewrite=true&omit_field_name=&omit_field_value=&omit_field_opt=%3D&stbtiq=&reportid=64d72587391adeec&index=27#0 The failing CHECK ensure that if the same histogram name is fetched, it is always of the same "type" (histogram, linearhistogram, booleanhistogram, etc.). In this case, it seems that the *.Overlap histogram has previously been created with a different type than the "base::Histogram" type attempted by UpdateIfNeededRecursive. There are 23 of these crashes since November 7th. You can look through all such M64 CHECK failures here: https://crash.corp.google.com/browse?q=product.Version%3E%3D%2764.0%27%20AND%20product.Version%20LIKE%20%27__.%25.%25.%25%27%20AND%20product.name%20CONTAINS%20%27Chrome%27%20AND%20custom_data.ChromeCrashProto.magic_signature_1.component%3D%27src%2Fbase%2Fmetrics%27%20AND%20custom_data.ChromeCrashProto.magic_signature_1.name%3D%27base%3A%3AHistogram%3A%3AFactory%3A%3ABuild%27&sql_dialect=dremelsql&ignore_case=false&enable_rewrite=true&omit_field_name=&omit_field_value=&omit_field_opt=%3D
,
Mar 28 2018
,
Mar 28 2018
Hey, sorry. I didn't see your reply back in November. There have been no changes in the histogram infrastructure that would cause such a crash. It's an indication of the same histogram name being defined in multiple ways. While I haven't investigated this specific one, others were due to histograms being created one way, serialized, and deserialized only to conflict with something defined locally. The query linked indicates I was only looking in M64 and above which was perhaps a mistake on my part. Unfortunately, there's no differentiation in the crash reports by histogram which means looking through them by hand to find matches of a particular histogram. Here's an updated search query: https://crash.corp.google.com/browse?q=product.Version%20LIKE%20%27__.%25.%25.%25%27%20AND%20product.name%20LIKE%20%27%25Chrome%25%27%20AND%20expanded_custom_data.ChromeCrashProto.magic_signature_1.component%3D%27src%2Fbase%2Fmetrics%27%20AND%20expanded_custom_data.ChromeCrashProto.magic_signature_1.name%3D%27base%3A%3AHistogram%3A%3AFactory%3A%3ABuild%27#-property-selector,-processtype,+magicsignature:50,-magicsignature2:50,-stablesignature:50,-clientid,-magicsignaturesorted:50 I hope to be able to eliminate these crashes in the near future and also more reliably show what histograms are misbehaving. But for the moment, I can't find any particular instances of this conflict. Your choice if you wish to investigate or not. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comment 1 by xidac...@chromium.org
, Nov 10 2017