FAIL: string/tst-strcoll-overflow

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FAIL: string/tst-strcoll-overflow

H.J. Lu-30
On x86-64 with 32GB RAM under kernel 4.9.3, I got

string/tst-strcoll-overflow
0
Expected signal 'Alarm clock' from child, got none

Has anyone else seen this?

--
H.J.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FAIL: string/tst-strcoll-overflow

Siddhesh Poyarekar-8
On Saturday 14 January 2017 03:44 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On x86-64 with 32GB RAM under kernel 4.9.3, I got
>
> string/tst-strcoll-overflow
> 0
> Expected signal 'Alarm clock' from child, got none

IIRC the test never actually completes, so the expected return there is
a SIGALRM.  In your case the test managed to complete (you've got some
monster hardware there!) which is why the test 'failed'.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to modify the skeleton to always
consider exit code 0 as success and then have the expected signals or
return codes be additional success factors.

Siddhesh
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FAIL: string/tst-strcoll-overflow

Stefan Liebler
In reply to this post by H.J. Lu-30
On 01/13/2017 11:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On x86-64 with 32GB RAM under kernel 4.9.3, I got
>
> string/tst-strcoll-overflow
> 0
> Expected signal 'Alarm clock' from child, got none
>
> Has anyone else seen this?
>
As information:
This test fails on s390 and a machine from Florian Weimer, too.
See "Re: [PATCH] support: Introduce new subdirectory for test
infrastructure"
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-12/msg00391.html and follow-Ups.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FAIL: string/tst-strcoll-overflow

Florian Weimer-5
On 01/16/2017 09:24 AM, Stefan Liebler wrote:

> On 01/13/2017 11:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On x86-64 with 32GB RAM under kernel 4.9.3, I got
>>
>> string/tst-strcoll-overflow
>> 0
>> Expected signal 'Alarm clock' from child, got none
>>
>> Has anyone else seen this?
>>
> As information:
> This test fails on s390 and a machine from Florian Weimer, too.
> See "Re: [PATCH] support: Introduce new subdirectory for test
> infrastructure"
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-12/msg00391.html and follow-Ups.
I came up with the attached patch to fix this test.

We could use file-based alias mappings to greatly reduce the amount of
memory required for this test, but this should probably wait until after
the release.

Thanks,
Florian

strcoll.patch (3K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FAIL: string/tst-strcoll-overflow

Stefan Liebler
On 01/23/2017 03:35 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:

> On 01/16/2017 09:24 AM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>> On 01/13/2017 11:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On x86-64 with 32GB RAM under kernel 4.9.3, I got
>>>
>>> string/tst-strcoll-overflow
>>> 0
>>> Expected signal 'Alarm clock' from child, got none
>>>
>>> Has anyone else seen this?
>>>
>> As information:
>> This test fails on s390 and a machine from Florian Weimer, too.
>> See "Re: [PATCH] support: Introduce new subdirectory for test
>> infrastructure"
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-12/msg00391.html and
>> follow-Ups.
>
> I came up with the attached patch to fix this test.
Do you know if there are archs / machines which run into the timeout
after commit "strcoll: improve performance by removing the cache
(#15884)"
(https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=glibc.git;h=0742aef6e52a935f9ccd69594831b56d807feef3)?
Before this commit, this test run into the timeout on my machine.

See comment from Siddhesh:
"Re: [Patch][BZ 17506] fix tst-strcoll-overflow returning before
timeout" (https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-11/msg00107.html):
Set the timeout to a value that is large enough to allow the test to
complete without an alarm on commodity hardware.  If someone finds
that it is not large enough they can always patch it to increase it.

On s390, the test is passing with your patch as strcoll returns far
before the timeout.
On my intel / power machines, too.

Bye.
Stefan

>
> We could use file-based alias mappings to greatly reduce the amount of
> memory required for this test, but this should probably wait until after
> the release.
>
> Thanks,
> Florian

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FAIL: string/tst-strcoll-overflow

Florian Weimer-5
On 01/24/2017 01:18 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote:

> On 01/23/2017 03:35 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 01/16/2017 09:24 AM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>>> On 01/13/2017 11:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On x86-64 with 32GB RAM under kernel 4.9.3, I got
>>>>
>>>> string/tst-strcoll-overflow
>>>> 0
>>>> Expected signal 'Alarm clock' from child, got none
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone else seen this?
>>>>
>>> As information:
>>> This test fails on s390 and a machine from Florian Weimer, too.
>>> See "Re: [PATCH] support: Introduce new subdirectory for test
>>> infrastructure"
>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-12/msg00391.html and
>>> follow-Ups.
>>
>> I came up with the attached patch to fix this test.

> Do you know if there are archs / machines which run into the timeout
> after commit "strcoll: improve performance by removing the cache
> (#15884)"
> (https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=glibc.git;h=0742aef6e52a935f9ccd69594831b56d807feef3)?

I'm not sure if there are any such machines.  I expect a large run time
(several minutes) on some machines, even relatively current ones, which
is why I think this should remain an xtest.

> On s390, the test is passing with your patch as strcoll returns far
> before the timeout.
> On my intel / power machines, too.

Good.  Siddhesh, is it okay to commit this test fix at this point?

Thanks,
Florian
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FAIL: string/tst-strcoll-overflow

Siddhesh Poyarekar-8
On Tuesday 24 January 2017 06:18 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Good.  Siddhesh, is it okay to commit this test fix at this point?

Yes, please do.  The patch looks OK to me.

Siddhesh