public inbox for gdb-prs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "cel at linux dot ibm.com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/31312] attach-many-short-lived-threads gives inconsistent results Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:41:39 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-31312-4717-Br9GCGbuw6@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-31312-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31312 --- Comment #15 from Carl E Love <cel at linux dot ibm.com> --- Tommy: I spent some time trying to dig into this again. The gdb log says that it detached from the pid. I don't find any way to verify that. I don't see any gdb attached thread status command that would verify it. I did try putting in sleep commands in the hope that if it was a race of trying to delay the attach a bit more to give time for the detach to really finish. But that didn't make any difference. I was able to get the expect script to issue the ps command on the fail so I can go look at the processes running: if {$eperm} { xfail "$test (EPERM)" # The attach failed. No point in doing the rest # of the tests since we are not attached? So # should we either 1) exit the test; or 2) # try again with a new testpid? puts "CARLL, xfail EPERM, testpid $testpid" gdb_test "detach" "Detaching from.*" # try to figure out the state of the process set prompt {\$ $} spawn bash expect -re $prompt send "ps -eaf \r" expect { "aa" { send "CARLL, Output\r" } -re $prompt } expect eof Based on the ps output, it does look like the process is still running. With regards to my patch, you mentioned that you were concerned about leaving the process running and then starting another one. Perhaps we should kill the process that we couldn't attach to then create a new one? That way we shouldn't be leaving anything running. Specifically: -re "$gdb_prompt $" { if {$eperm} { xfail "$test (EPERM)" # Kill the current process and start a new one << NEW kill_wait_spawned_process $test_spawn_id << NEW # The attach failed. No point in doing the rest # of the tests since we are not attached? So # should we either 1) exit the test; or 2) # try again with a new testpid? puts "CARLL, xfail EPERM, testpid $testpid" # Try a new process set test_spawn_id [spawn_wait_for_attach $binfile] set testpid [spawn_id_get_pid $test_spawn_id] } else { pass $test } } We could just end the test as you suggested. That is still another option. Thoughts on killing the previous thread and then creating a new one? Or would you still prefer just ending the test? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-15 16:41 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2024-01-29 18:06 [Bug testsuite/31312] New: " cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-01-29 18:08 ` [Bug testsuite/31312] " cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-01-29 18:20 ` tromey at sourceware dot org 2024-01-29 20:55 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-29 21:35 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-01-29 21:44 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-01-29 22:38 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-01-30 7:21 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-30 10:13 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-31 16:14 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-02-06 18:59 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-02-12 18:58 ` tromey at sourceware dot org 2024-02-12 18:59 ` tromey at sourceware dot org 2024-02-16 4:42 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-03-09 0:45 ` tromey at sourceware dot org 2024-03-09 1:29 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-03-09 6:59 ` brobecker at gnat dot com 2024-03-09 16:43 ` tromey at sourceware dot org 2024-03-15 16:41 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com [this message] 2024-03-15 21:57 ` thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org 2024-03-16 1:37 ` thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org 2024-03-16 17:42 ` tromey at sourceware dot org 2024-03-18 18:45 ` thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org 2024-03-19 15:14 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-03-19 15:35 ` thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org 2024-03-19 15:57 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-03-19 19:10 ` thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org 2024-03-21 23:17 ` thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org 2024-04-14 17:56 ` brobecker at gnat dot com 2024-04-16 4:56 ` thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org 2024-04-17 14:52 ` pedro at palves dot net 2024-04-30 2:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-05-10 22:14 ` brobecker at gnat dot com 2024-05-10 22:28 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-05-11 23:48 ` thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org 2024-05-13 19:03 ` tromey at sourceware dot org 2024-05-14 15:24 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-05-17 16:26 ` tromey at sourceware dot org 2024-05-17 16:33 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-05-17 17:10 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-05-17 19:54 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com 2024-05-17 19:58 ` pedro at palves dot net 2024-05-17 23:02 ` cel at linux dot ibm.com
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=bug-31312-4717-Br9GCGbuw6@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \ --cc=gdb-prs@sourceware.org \ /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: linkBe 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).