Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 79427 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2006 22:38:30 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Nov 2006 22:38:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 29483 invoked by uid 500); 15 Nov 2006 22:38:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 28830 invoked by uid 500); 15 Nov 2006 22:38:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 28821 invoked by uid 99); 15 Nov 2006 22:38:38 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:38:38 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of gcjhd-harmony-dev@m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.91.229.2] (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:38:23 -0800 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GkTNP-0008OJ-Hs for harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:37:03 +0100 Received: from msfwpr01.ims.intel.com ([62.118.80.132]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:37:03 +0100 Received: from gshimansky by msfwpr01.ims.intel.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:37:03 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org From: Gregory Shimansky Subject: Re: [drlvm][em64t] build fails Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:36:45 +0300 Lines: 79 Message-ID: References: <4554E6B2.7090001@apache.org> <200611110153.19120.gshimansky@gmail.com> <200611110312.50644.gshimansky@gmail.com> <783bf8b0611131123h3a881a4bvdfc64e156af1c4c6@mail.gmail.com> <783bf8b0611140856n3131b772p32a26fcde68c16e3@mail.gmail.com> <455A5E1D.5040300@pobox.com> <455B9354.1070200@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: msfwpr01.ims.intel.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) In-Reply-To: <455B9354.1070200@pobox.com> Sender: news X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > Gregory Shimansky wrote: >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> >>> >>> Gregory Shimansky wrote: >>>> Pavel Afremov wrote: >>>>> On 11/13/06, Gregory Shimansky wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> So what is the point to have a test which would pass either way? >>>>>> Check >>>>>> that it doesn't crash the VM, is it the only purpose for it? >>>>>> >>>>> I think yes. It should check that test doesn't crash VM if stack >>>>> size isn't >>>>> enough. >>>> >>>> But we wouldn't know that SOE has happened or not if test passes >>>> even when SOE was not thrown. >>>> >>>> It seems like SuSE9 is the only existing distribution which doesn't >>>> limit stack size on 64-bit architectures. SuSE10 has this limit and >>>> Gentoo has it too. Should we care that this test fails on SuSE9 when >>>> it passes on all other platforms and SOE is known to be thrown? >>> >>> How could there be no limit to stack size?? >> >> Well there is no stack limit imposed by the OS on SuSE9. Maybe it is >> specific to this version because on SuSE10 there is a normal limit of >> 8Mb. But when I run ulimit -a on SuSE9 I see this: >> >> core file size (blocks, -c) unlimited >> data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited >> file size (blocks, -f) unlimited >> max locked memory (kbytes, -l) unlimited >> max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited >> open files (-n) 4096 >> pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8 >> stack size (kbytes, -s) unlimited >> cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited >> max user processes (-u) 40960 >> virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited >> >> So the stack may grow up to the virtual address range which is pretty >> huge on 64-bit platforms. No physical memory is enough to allocate >> stack this big, so the system starts swapping nonstop. Maybe OOM linux >> killer will kill this process after some time, maybe not. >> >>> Is there a way the test framework could set this? Does DRLVM support >>> -Xss yet? >> >> -Xss is the lower stack limit, it doesn't specify the maximum stack >> size, doesn't it? > > What does "lower stack limit" mean? :) I think that it's the size of > the stack, max. I thought it is a starting stack size, like -Xms for heap size. Now that I searched the web it appears that it is the maximum indeed. > I think all you need to do then is set the stack size : > > ulimit -s 8192 > > or something. We should probably do this before each run on linux so > that things are well defined and reproducible. I think 64-bit SuSE9 is just the only weird distribution which doesn't have this limit. In 10th version they fixed this. So ulimit -s is not necessary in most cases. I'd still like to have a recursion limit in StackTest but Rana has convinced me that no SOE shouldn't mean that test has failed. I'll patch it now. -- Gregory