Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:29:21 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] nolibc: add support for the s390 platform |
| |
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 06:53:47PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 08:32:10AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 05:12:49PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 06:53:34AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > Here is one of them, based on both the fixes and Sven's s390 support. > > > > Please let me know if you need any other combination. > > > > > > Thanks, here's the problem: > > > > > > > 0 getpid = 1 [OK] > > > > 1 getppid = 0 [OK] > > > > 3 gettid = 1 [OK] > > > > 5 getpgid_self = 0 [OK] > > > > 6 getpgid_bad = -1 ESRCH [OK] > > > > 7 kill_0[ 1.940442] tsc: Refined TSC clocksource calibration: 2399.981 MHz > > > > [ 1.942334] clocksource: tsc: mask: 0xffffffffffffffff max_cycles: 0x229825a5278, max_idle_ns: 440795306804 ns > > > > = 0 [OK] > > > > 8 kill_CONT = 0 [ 1.944987] clocksource: Switched to clocksource tsc > > > > [OK] > > > > 9 kill_BADPID = -1 ESRCH [OK] > > > (...) > > > > > > It's clear that "grep -c ^[0-9].*OK" will not count all of them (2 are > > > indeed missing). > > > > > > We could probably start with "quiet" but that would be against the > > > principle of using this to troubleshoot issues. I think we just stick > > > to the current search of "FAIL" and that as long as a success is > > > reported and the number of successes is within the expected range > > > that could be OK. At least I guess :-/ > > > > Huh. Would it make sense to delay the start of the nolibc testing by a > > few seconds in order to avoid this sort of thing? Or would that cause > > other problems? > > That would be quite annoying. Delaying is never long enough for some > issues, too long for the majority of cases where there is no issue. I'd > suggest that we just rely on the fail count for now (as it is) and that > will allow us to collect a larger variety of discrepancies and probably > figure a better solution at some point. For example if we find that it's > always the TSC that does this, maybe starting x86 with notsc will be a > good fix.
Sounds good to me!
Thanx, Paul
| |