public inbox for gdb-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug testsuite/18704] New: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check
@ 2015-07-22 9:17 ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-22 9:32 ` [Bug testsuite/18704] " ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
` (8 more replies)
0 siblings, 9 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ciro.santilli at gmail dot com @ 2015-07-22 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704
Bug ID: 18704
Summary: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check
Product: gdb
Version: HEAD
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
When I run the testsuite, gdb.base/bigcore.exp takes a very long time, and
worse: almost stalls my machine because it runs out of memory, and produces a
16Gb file.
I wish that this test would not be run by default as it just puts way more
strain on the machine than any other.
I have seen projects that put all slow / intensive tests in a separate
directory and you need a separate command to do them, e.g.:
make perf
I'm not sure if such test category currently exists: performance tests are
typical candidates for such category, but they are acceptably slow.
If I could all tests but one that would be great as well, but gmake's wildcard
does not seem to support it easily:
https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Wildcards.html
Old issue that does an analogous thing on Frisk:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1852
Possibly related: Yao Qi's profiling proposal:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-08/msg00380.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/18704] Don't run bigcore test by default on make check
2015-07-22 9:17 [Bug testsuite/18704] New: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
@ 2015-07-22 9:32 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-22 9:53 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ciro.santilli at gmail dot com @ 2015-07-22 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704
Ciro Santilli <ciro.santilli at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P2 |P1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/18704] Don't run bigcore test by default on make check
2015-07-22 9:17 [Bug testsuite/18704] New: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-22 9:32 ` [Bug testsuite/18704] " ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
@ 2015-07-22 9:53 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-22 10:18 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ciro.santilli at gmail dot com @ 2015-07-22 9:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704
--- Comment #1 from Ciro Santilli <ciro.santilli at gmail dot com> ---
OK, there is:
make check-perf
which runs the perf tests, so that is where I recommend putting bigcore.
I was able to exclude that single test with:
make check RUNTESTFLAGS="--ignore bigcore.exp"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/18704] Don't run bigcore test by default on make check
2015-07-22 9:17 [Bug testsuite/18704] New: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-22 9:32 ` [Bug testsuite/18704] " ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-22 9:53 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
@ 2015-07-22 10:18 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-23 9:22 ` palves at redhat dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ciro.santilli at gmail dot com @ 2015-07-22 10:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704
--- Comment #2 from Ciro Santilli <ciro.santilli at gmail dot com> ---
Removing bigcore.exp took the testsuite from 18 minutes to 13 minutes.
My machine specs: 4Gb RAM, Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3210M (ivy bridge)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/18704] Don't run bigcore test by default on make check
2015-07-22 9:17 [Bug testsuite/18704] New: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-22 10:18 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
@ 2015-07-23 9:22 ` palves at redhat dot com
2015-07-23 14:57 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: palves at redhat dot com @ 2015-07-23 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704
Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |palves at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 from Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com> ---
bigcore.exp is not about performance - see comments throughout the test's exp
and c files. It takes under two seconds to run on my laptop (x86_64 Fedora
20).
It sounds like your system does not have sparse corefiles support, or that got
broken for you, somehow.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/18704] Don't run bigcore test by default on make check
2015-07-22 9:17 [Bug testsuite/18704] New: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-23 9:22 ` palves at redhat dot com
@ 2015-07-23 14:57 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-31 11:44 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ciro.santilli at gmail dot com @ 2015-07-23 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704
--- Comment #4 from Ciro Santilli <ciro.santilli at gmail dot com> ---
Ah, there is even an opt-out check on the test OSes that don't support it, I
should have read it better...
Ubuntu 14.04 here, kernel 3.13 here.
I think I've found the culprit:
cat /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
gives:
|/usr/share/apport/apport %p %s %c %P
which uses apport to deal with the core.
If I do:
echo | sudo tee /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
compile and run `bigcore.c`, the problem is gone, and I get a sparse core.
Fedora does not use apport although it was considered:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/CrashHandling
I don't know if it is technically feasible for apport to generate the sparse
dump.
What pointed me in this direction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7679307
I propose either of:
- don't run bigcore.exp on `make check`, and remove the OS checks of the
file. They are ugly anyways.
Require some extra option to run it like `make check BIGCORE=true`, or
`make check-bigcore` or something.
- add another check: "is this linux and does core_pattern start with | ?"
Ugly and brittle. How long until another system breaks this check in a
different way? :-)
I'll patch if you agree to those possibilities or see a better one.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/18704] Don't run bigcore test by default on make check
2015-07-22 9:17 [Bug testsuite/18704] New: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-23 14:57 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
@ 2015-07-31 11:44 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-08-02 0:44 ` xdje42 at gmail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ciro.santilli at gmail dot com @ 2015-07-31 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704
--- Comment #5 from Ciro Santilli <ciro.santilli at gmail dot com> ---
I've proposed adding a warning to the README:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-07/msg00932.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/18704] Don't run bigcore test by default on make check
2015-07-22 9:17 [Bug testsuite/18704] New: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-31 11:44 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
@ 2015-08-02 0:44 ` xdje42 at gmail dot com
2015-08-02 13:56 ` palves at redhat dot com
2021-01-08 16:37 ` simark at simark dot ca
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: xdje42 at gmail dot com @ 2015-08-02 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704
Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |xdje42 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com> ---
Fedora uses abrt which introduces a similar problem.
$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
|/usr/libexec/abrt-hook-ccpp %s %c %p %u %g %t %e %i
Another issue is yama.ptrace_scope.
If it's set then all attach testing is messed up.
I think this is a problem that needs to be solved,
and I'm ok with system-specific checks.
Adding them on a per-test basis gets cumbersome though,
there may be only one big core test today but
even other core tests get slowed down.
And there are a plethora of attach tests and
we don't want to have to edit and maintain such
checks in every one of them.
What I do is perform a collection of sanity checks
up front, before real testing starts.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/18704] Don't run bigcore test by default on make check
2015-07-22 9:17 [Bug testsuite/18704] New: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-08-02 0:44 ` xdje42 at gmail dot com
@ 2015-08-02 13:56 ` palves at redhat dot com
2021-01-08 16:37 ` simark at simark dot ca
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: palves at redhat dot com @ 2015-08-02 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704
--- Comment #7 from Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Ciro Santilli from comment #4)
> I don't know if it is technically feasible for apport to generate the sparse
> dump.
Can't see why not.
(In reply to Doug Evans from comment #6)
> Fedora uses abrt which introduces a similar problem.
> $ cat /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
> |/usr/libexec/abrt-hook-ccpp %s %c %p %u %g %t %e %i
AFAICS from the sources, abrt should be creating sparse cores:
https://github.com/abrt/abrt/blob/master/src/hooks/abrt-hook-ccpp.c
Funny enough, they even have a test specifically to make sure that
gdb's bigcore test doesn't run slower with abrt:
https://github.com/abrt/abrt/tree/master/tests/runtests/bz591504-sparse-core-files-performance-hit
> I think this is a problem that needs to be solved,
> and I'm ok with system-specific checks.
We can also detect if the system generates sparse cores, with
du --apparent-size (naturally gracefully handling the case
of "du --apparent" failing). That is, generate a smaller core
with zeros in it, check if it is sparse, and if not, skip the big
test.
> Adding them on a per-test basis gets cumbersome though,
> there may be only one big core test today but
> even other core tests get slowed down.
> And there are a plethora of attach tests and
> we don't want to have to edit and maintain such
> checks in every one of them.
We already have to do:
if {![can_spawn_for_attach]} {
return 0
}
On "attach" tests. We can put more checks inside that function (and rename
it if it makes sense).
>
> What I do is perform a collection of sanity checks
> up front, before real testing starts.
I think that'd be nice too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug testsuite/18704] Don't run bigcore test by default on make check
2015-07-22 9:17 [Bug testsuite/18704] New: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2015-08-02 13:56 ` palves at redhat dot com
@ 2021-01-08 16:37 ` simark at simark dot ca
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: simark at simark dot ca @ 2021-01-08 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18704
Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |simark at simark dot ca
--- Comment #8 from Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> ---
Heh, I stumbled on this. I'm trying to (re-)build a buildbot for GDB in an
Ubuntu 20.04 VM, and was wondering why my GDB build directory was > 16GB in
size. Because the core is generated through apport, so not sparse.
I think it would indeed be a good idea to generate a small core first, check if
it is sparse, and skip the test if not.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-01-08 16:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-07-22 9:17 [Bug testsuite/18704] New: Don't run bigcore test by default on make check ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-22 9:32 ` [Bug testsuite/18704] " ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-22 9:53 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-22 10:18 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-23 9:22 ` palves at redhat dot com
2015-07-23 14:57 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-07-31 11:44 ` ciro.santilli at gmail dot com
2015-08-02 0:44 ` xdje42 at gmail dot com
2015-08-02 13:56 ` palves at redhat dot com
2021-01-08 16:37 ` simark at simark dot ca
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).