From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9405 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2004 22:12:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9390 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2004 22:12:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.202.55) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2004 22:12:24 -0000 Received: from lucon.org ([24.6.43.109]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004032622122301100mog25e>; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:12:24 +0000 Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1688964CFF; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:12:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:11:00 -0000 From: "H. J. Lu" To: Laurent GUERBY Cc: Chris Proctor , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Arnaud Charlet Subject: Re: How to add timeout to Ada tests on Linux/ia64? Message-ID: <20040326221223.GA25963@lucon.org> References: <20040324225404.GA12176@lucon.org> <20040325080254.GA6150@bonnie.vic.bigpond.net.au> <20040325094551.A29279@dublin.act-europe.fr> <20040325120308.GA20121@bonnie.vic.bigpond.net.au> <20040325134346.B8448@dublin.act-europe.fr> <20040325201606.GA22539@bonnie.vic.bigpond.net.au> <1080248514.27851.201.camel@pc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1080248514.27851.201.camel@pc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01588.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 10:01:54PM +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 21:16, Chris Proctor wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:43:46PM +0100, Arnaud Charlet wrote: > > > > I tried 0.01 but still basicly got the same intermittant failures. > > > > > > Please tell us which failures you're seeing, because we're discussing > > > in the dark otherwise. > > > > > > Arno > > > > I believe from memory the main test I was seeing problems with > > was C954025. This test has delays of 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 seconds. > > When these are multiplied by 0.001 the resultant delays become > > much less that the HZ(100) scheduling of a loaded Linux machine. > > Funny I never see this one failing but it tests order of > operations and delays and can deadlock in some cases,eg: > > main: Launch_Control.Enable_Launch_Control; > Launch_Control:Enable_Launch_Control > main:Mission_Control.Do_Launch; > Mission_Control:Launch_Control.Start_Countdown > Launch_Control:Start_Countdown, delay too small, select on null, loop back to top > Mission_Control:requeue hangs > > I guess it's more visible on loaded multiprocessors. > > So it's safer to remove all Impdef.One_Second > for this test and document why. Arnaud, do you agree with my > analysis? > I had to kill some of the following tests by hand on a 4-way 1.3Ghz Itanium 2 machine. H.J. ---- FAIL: c91004b FAIL: c940010 FAIL: c94002g FAIL: c94007a FAIL: c95022b FAIL: c95072a FAIL: c95072b FAIL: c954016 FAIL: c954017 FAIL: c974004 FAIL: c974009 FAIL: c9a011a FAIL: cb1010a FAIL: cb20001 FAIL: cb20004 FAIL: cb41002 FAIL: cb5001a FAIL: cb5001b FAIL: cb5002a FAIL: cd2a83c FAIL: cd2a91c FAIL: cxg2002 FAIL: cxg2003 FAIL: cxg2004 FAIL: cxg2006 FAIL: cxg2007 FAIL: cxg2010 FAIL: cxg2011 FAIL: cxg2012 FAIL: cxg2013 FAIL: cxg2014 FAIL: cxg2015 FAIL: cxg2016 FAIL: cxg2017 FAIL: cxg2018 FAIL: cxg2019 FAIL: cxg2020 FAIL: cxg2021