* [patch] testsuite: pthread_cond_wait.exp: Avoid a race
@ 2013-02-12 17:04 Jan Kratochvil
2013-02-12 17:23 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2013-02-12 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Hi,
-PASS: gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.exp: backtrace in blocked thread
+FAIL: gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.exp: backtrace in blocked thread
-Thread 2 (Thread 0xf7dd6b40 (LWP 4893)):^M
+Thread 2 (Thread 0xf7dd6b40 (LWP 4754)):^M
#0 0xf7fdc430 in __kernel_vsyscall ()^M
-#1 0xf7fc012c in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/i486/pthread_cond_wait.S:172^M
-#2 0x08048683 in cond_wait (cond=0xf7dd6308, mut=0xf7dd6338) at gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.c:28^M
-#3 0x080486ce in noreturn () at gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.c:43^M
-#4 0x080486db in forever_pthread (unused=0x0) at gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.c:49^M
-#5 0xf7fbcadf in start_thread (arg=0xf7dd6b40) at pthread_create.c:309^M
-#6 0xf7ecd42e in clone () at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/clone.S:133^M
+#1 0xf7fc2dd2 in __lll_lock_wait_private () at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/i486/lowlevellock.S:98^M
+#2 0xf7fbd7b2 in _L_lock_3175 () from /lib/libpthread.so.0^M
+#3 0xf7fbccc9 in start_thread (arg=0xf7dd6b40) at pthread_create.c:298^M
+#4 0xf7ecd42e in clone () at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/clone.S:133^M
^M
-Thread 1 (Thread 0xf7dd76c0 (LWP 4745)):^M
+Thread 1 (Thread 0xf7dd76c0 (LWP 4628)):^M
#0 break_me () at gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.c:56^M
#1 0x08048738 in main () at gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.c:68^M
-(gdb) PASS: gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.exp: backtrace in blocked thread
+(gdb) FAIL: gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.exp: backtrace in blocked thread
It is just too racy. I will check in the easy workaround below, it is sure not
a real fix.
Thanks,
Jan
gdb/testsuite/
2013-02-12 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
* gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.c (main): Remove variable ts. Replace
nanosleep by sleep.
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.c
index a639e41..3c28e13 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.c
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/pthread_cond_wait.c
@@ -59,12 +59,11 @@ int
main (void)
{
pthread_t forever;
- const struct timespec ts = { 0, 10000000 }; /* 0.01 sec */
pthread_create (&forever, NULL, forever_pthread, NULL);
for (;;)
{
- nanosleep (&ts, NULL);
+ sleep (2);
break_me();
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [patch] testsuite: pthread_cond_wait.exp: Avoid a race
2013-02-12 17:04 [patch] testsuite: pthread_cond_wait.exp: Avoid a race Jan Kratochvil
@ 2013-02-12 17:23 ` Joel Brobecker
2013-02-12 17:30 ` Jan Kratochvil
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2013-02-12 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: gdb-patches
> It is just too racy. I will check in the easy workaround below, it is
> sure not a real fix.
2 seconds feels much much much too long, however. I try to avoid
these types of delays, because collectively they make a significant
dent on the overall amount of time it takes to run the testsuite.
I am trying to think of a way to rewrite the program to avoid
the delay entirely, but I don't think it's possible, because
we need to the thread to run until it blocks in pthread_cond_wait.
Can we try a smaller value? For instance, if we went from 0.01
second to 0.1 seconds, we'd increase the time by a factor of 10.
In today's CPU times, 0.1 second enough to do a huge amount of
processing, no?
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] testsuite: pthread_cond_wait.exp: Avoid a race
2013-02-12 17:23 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2013-02-12 17:30 ` Jan Kratochvil
2013-02-12 17:39 ` Joel Brobecker
2013-02-12 17:41 ` Jan Kratochvil
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2013-02-12 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:23:01 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > It is just too racy. I will check in the easy workaround below, it is
> > sure not a real fix.
>
> 2 seconds feels much much much too long, however.
2 seconds is a general delay standard in the testsuite so I do not find it
would hurt so much:
$ grep 'sleep 2' */*.exp|wc -l
20
> I try to avoid
> these types of delays, because collectively they make a significant
> dent on the overall amount of time it takes to run the testsuite.
The testsuite is already directory-parallelized and soon Tom should introduce
even a file-parallelization, so sleep should not hurt much.
> I am trying to think of a way to rewrite the program to avoid
> the delay entirely,
Yes, I understand the sleep is terribly but as it is so widespread in the
testsuite I just found it a "good enough" fix. Sure I can keep it only among
my local non-upstreamed testsuite races fixes so that I can continue running
the daily regression testing:
gdbserverasyncnonstop.patch
watchpointfork2.patch
gccpr4.patch
valgrind-kill.patch
> but I don't think it's possible,
IMO there should be retrying. If it does not find the symbol then resume it
for another 0.1 sec or even 1 sec as such case does not commonly happen.
> Can we try a smaller value?
No. IMO even those 2 seconds is too long. The machine has load about 20-30
when running the parallelized testsuites (I always run 3 at once) and I would
like to parallelize it even more if the testsuite already was not so fragily
gainst even higher loads.
Thanks,
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] testsuite: pthread_cond_wait.exp: Avoid a race
2013-02-12 17:30 ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2013-02-12 17:39 ` Joel Brobecker
2013-02-12 20:13 ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-14 15:25 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
2013-02-12 17:41 ` Jan Kratochvil
1 sibling, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2013-02-12 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: gdb-patches
> 2 seconds is a general delay standard in the testsuite so I do not find it
> would hurt so much:
> $ grep 'sleep 2' */*.exp|wc -l
> 20
OK, it will be fine, I suppose, especially if we can file-parallelize
the testsuite.
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] testsuite: pthread_cond_wait.exp: Avoid a race
2013-02-12 17:39 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2013-02-12 20:13 ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-14 15:25 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2013-02-12 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: Jan Kratochvil, gdb-patches
Joel> OK, it will be fine, I suppose, especially if we can file-parallelize
Joel> the testsuite.
I have it working -- not in my totally ideal form, but I'm reaching
diminishing returns and also boredom. I need to look into some
remote-testing things, and also write up an RFC about changes to the
tests. I keep postponing this, mostly due to unrelated things, but I'll
get to it sooner rather than later.
Anyway, as part of this, I looked at test suite timings. I ran each
.exp file separately and looked at the elapsed time it took.
Some interesting bits:
octave:3> mean(Tdata)
ans = 1.1680
octave:4> min(Tdata)
ans = 0.070000
octave:5> max(Tdata)
ans = 80.780
octave:6> std(Tdata)
ans = 4.1273
So, most tests are quite fast, but we have some huge outliers. The 80
second one is break-interp.exp, but there are others, see appended.
Crunching the numbers, something I'm not totally confident I did
correctly, says that we can scale the test suite up to about -j12.
After that break-interp will start dominating the time.
Tom
All times further than 2 standard deviations from the mean:
octave> sort(Tdata(find(Tdata > mean(Tdata) + 2*std(Tdata))), 'descend')
ans =
80.7800
60.4900
40.2700
34.3500
22.0500
20.0000
19.8900
19.6500
19.3000
15.4500
14.7300
14.5400
13.5700
10.2300
9.9100
9.7000
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [commit] [patch] testsuite: pthread_cond_wait.exp: Avoid a race
2013-02-12 17:39 ` Joel Brobecker
2013-02-12 20:13 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2013-02-14 15:25 ` Jan Kratochvil
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2013-02-14 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:38:55 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > 2 seconds is a general delay standard in the testsuite so I do not find it
> > would hurt so much:
> > $ grep 'sleep 2' */*.exp|wc -l
> > 20
>
> OK, it will be fine, I suppose, especially if we can file-parallelize
> the testsuite.
Checked in:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2013-02/msg00102.html
Thanks,
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] testsuite: pthread_cond_wait.exp: Avoid a race
2013-02-12 17:30 ` Jan Kratochvil
2013-02-12 17:39 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2013-02-12 17:41 ` Jan Kratochvil
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2013-02-12 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:29:50 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > Can we try a smaller value?
>
> No. IMO even those 2 seconds is too long. The machine has load about 20-30
too short
> when running the parallelized testsuites (I always run 3 at once) and I would
> like to parallelize it even more if the testsuite already was not so fragily
> gainst even higher loads.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-14 15:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-02-12 17:04 [patch] testsuite: pthread_cond_wait.exp: Avoid a race Jan Kratochvil
2013-02-12 17:23 ` Joel Brobecker
2013-02-12 17:30 ` Jan Kratochvil
2013-02-12 17:39 ` Joel Brobecker
2013-02-12 20:13 ` Tom Tromey
2013-02-14 15:25 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
2013-02-12 17:41 ` Jan Kratochvil
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox