harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] stress.Mix problems -- should it prevent committing patches?
Date Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:19:32 GMT

On Jan 8, 2007, at 7:55 PM, Weldon Washburn wrote:

> Naveen,
>
> This is a big help.  It really looks like stress.Mix/MegaSpawn has  
> uncovered
> a new bug.  I looked at the excludes svn log and indeed stress.Mix  
> was taken
> off the excludes list on December 10.
>
> Unless someone objects in the next 24 hours, I will put stress.Mix  
> back on
> the excludes list.

And then what?

geir

>
>
>
> On 1/8/07, Naveen Neelakantam <neelakan@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Well that was a fun wild goose chase.
>>
>> It turns out that build test last worked for me around December 8th,
>> but first started hanging on stress.Mix around December 12th.  What
>> happened between those two dates?  Quite a few tests were taken off
>> of the exclude list for x86 linux, including stress.Mix (look at logs
>> for build/make/excludes/exclude.drlvm_smoke.linux.x86.jit).
>>
>> I checked out an old tree (--revision "{20061208}") and tried running
>> stress.Mix and MegaSpawn and they both hang just as with more recent
>> trees.
>>
>> So, I retract my previous assertion that stress.Mix passed once upon
>> a time.  I was simply confused.
>>
>> As has been suggested, the right thing to do might be to just put
>> stress.Mix back onto the exclude list.
>>
>> Naveen
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Weldon Washburn wrote:
>>
>> > On 1/8/07, Naveen Neelakantam <neelakan@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It did run once upon a time.  I'll try and see if I can figure out
>> >> when that was.
>> >
>> >
>> > That would be great.  If you happen to have an old tree, please try
>> > to zip
>> > it.  Also, try to run MegaSpawn.java to see if it passes.
>> >
>> > Naveen
>> >>
>> >> On Jan 8, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Weldon Washburn wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 1/8/07, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 1/7/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >What is in the backlog?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >I was testing on em64t dual core, and it failed there
too.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which one failed in 64 bit mode? The basic stress.Mix or  
>> Weldon's
>> >> >> MegaSpawn?
>> >> >> And did it hang, or run out of memory? Running out of memory on
>> >> >> these 64
>> >> >> bit
>> >> >> systems is not easy even under the conditions of this test.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I think we broke something basic.  By just ignoring it and
>> >> >> continuing
>> >> >> > >with commits that are related, it seems like we're going
 
>> going
>> >> >> to get
>> >> >> > >in deeper trouble...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am a little confused too. The stress.Mix test can randomly  
>> land
>> >> >> up doing
>> >> >> unbounded thread creation( as in Weldon's repro case )...and I
>> >> >> would think
>> >> >> that it is not unreasonable to fail in such a case. The RI  
>> fails
>> >> >> too. But
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> don't understand how it never failed before.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> > I attempted to determine if there ever was an old svn  
>> revision that
>> >> > would
>> >> > pass stress.Mix test on my rhel 2-way SMP box.  Unfortunately  
>> the
>> >> > unified
>> >> > classlib/vm build changed the how one gets an old revision  
>> from the
>> >> > repository.  I don't know if its worth trying to resurect an old
>> >> svn
>> >> > revision.  I am hoping someone will confirm if stress.Mix  
>> ever ran
>> >> > successfully on 2-way and 4-way boxes.  This seems way easier  
>> than
>> >> > trying to
>> >> > reconstruct old build.xml files.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Weldon Washburn
>> >> > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Weldon Washburn
>> > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Weldon Washburn
> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division


Mime
View raw message