From dev-return-22770-apmail-harmony-dev-archive=harmony.apache.org@harmony.apache.org Tue Jan 09 06:39:51 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 75940 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2007 06:39:51 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Jan 2007 06:39:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 10253 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jan 2007 06:39:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 10223 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jan 2007 06:39:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 10214 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jan 2007 06:39:55 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:39:55 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of weldonwjw@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.168 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.168] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.168) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:39:46 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z36so5511903uge for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:39:24 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=us8jmd4Fnr9IH6Sy7HBnq4kzs+WYDuSzZFAQvPQlTglz5t0duLu42/sf1c/LLwhS+L8TtZAaH1rzomOOn9yROqwp83W0Bv1zF2l8xwHa0/5VoTIv5B7JsgBN0Y1vDAaWUdAPNbzpigwtxEqzT+udRyNE5n9OBXGBhKh2MdBl6co= Received: by 10.78.57.11 with SMTP id f11mr4385122hua.1168324763930; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:39:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.137.2 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jan 2007 22:39:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4dd1f3f00701082239rf1aad6ao9e804d11e62662be@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 22:39:23 -0800 From: "Weldon Washburn" To: dev@harmony.apache.org Subject: Re: [drlvm] stress.Mix problems -- should it prevent committing patches? In-Reply-To: <00308F9C-BFDC-4B3D-8823-6209DE79D3DC@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_82971_9113877.1168324763822" References: <4dd1f3f00701061535k64eb060cg10afce01289b27bb@mail.gmail.com> <51d555c70701080837x4323770aj9da4d0b77de441d0@mail.gmail.com> <4dd1f3f00701081020h1c31eaa5qf5e892d0b426a539@mail.gmail.com> <00308F9C-BFDC-4B3D-8823-6209DE79D3DC@pobox.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_82971_9113877.1168324763822 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 1/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Weldon Washburn wrote: > > > On 1/8/07, Rana Dasgupta wrote: > >> > >> On 1/7/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. 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. > > Huh? > > Why do you think you need to reconstruct anything? Its a moot point. Naveen got the answers for us already. geir > > -- Weldon Washburn Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division ------=_Part_82971_9113877.1168324763822--