From: Wei-min Pan <weimin.pan@oracle.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.base/siginfo-thread.exp: Increase timeout for 'gcore' command
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:10:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <58CAE319.1030807@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46433bf1-c3a6-d2fc-c6b3-1cfe21553a87@redhat.com>
Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 03/16/2017 06:27 PM, Wei-min Pan wrote:
>
>> Pedro Alves wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/16/2017 04:00 PM, Wei-min Pan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yao Qi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Did you see timeout fails in all gcore related tests? gdb_gcore_cmd is
>>>>> used in many places in gdb testsuite. Did you investigate why it is so
>>>>> slow to generate coredump in gdb?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, only this test failed with timeout and did so consistently. The
>>>> generated core file was fine.
>>>> We suspect the slow disk performance was the culprit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I agree with Yao, and I'm not convinced. The generated core file is just
>>> "8.6M" on my x86_64 Fedora 23 and the test runs in under 1s here.
>>>
>>> $ time make check TESTS="*/siginfo-thread.exp"
>>> ...
>>> real 0m0.781s
>>> user 0m0.554s
>>> sys 0m0.152s
>>>
>>>
>>> What's the size of the core you get? If you run the test manually,
>>> do we notice any kind of slowness?
>>>
>>>
>> The core size is a little over 9.0M but it took much longer to run this
>> individual test:
>>
>> % time make check TESTS="*/siginfo-thread.exp"
>> ...
>> real 0m11.743s
>> user 0m3.892s
>> sys 0m7.572s
>>
>> And I didn't notice any slowness if the test was run by hand.
>>
>
> You mean that by hand it went faster than that?
> So what is GDB doing differently when run via make check
> that makes it slower than running by hand?
>
Yes, but not by much faster:
% cat in
run
gcore tmp.gcore
quit
% time my_gdb siginfo-thread -x in
...
real 0m13.327s
user 0m3.504s
sys 0m7.572s
Thanks.
>
>>> If you have a general slowness issue in your testing host, then
>>> this should be affecting all gcore tests the same. We have some
>>> tests that generate big cores on purpose even.
>>>
>>>
>> Like I said, only this test consistently failed and the core file
>> generated was not that big.
>>
>
> Which suggests bumping the timeout is not the right thing to do.
>
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-16 19:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-01 3:23 Weimin Pan
2017-03-16 14:45 ` Yao Qi
2017-03-16 16:00 ` Wei-min Pan
2017-03-16 17:08 ` Pedro Alves
2017-03-16 18:27 ` Wei-min Pan
2017-03-16 18:34 ` Pedro Alves
2017-03-16 19:10 ` Wei-min Pan [this message]
2017-03-16 19:21 ` Pedro Alves
2017-03-16 19:51 ` Wei-min Pan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=58CAE319.1030807@oracle.com \
--to=weimin.pan@oracle.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=qiyaoltc@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).