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: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 18:59:47 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-31312-4717-HyhsF5YeJ0@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 #9 from Carl E Love <cel at linux dot ibm.com> --- I spent time playing with changing the timeout with no luck. So, looking more carefully at the test and the output,... In the expect script we have the following check: gdb_test_multiple "attach $testpid" $test { ... -re "Cannot attach to lwp $decimal: Operation not permitted" { # On Linux, PTRACE_ATTACH sometimes fails with # EPERM, even though /proc/PID/status indicates # the thread is running. set eperm 1 exp_continue } ... -re "$gdb_prompt $" { if {$eperm} { xfail "$test (EPERM)" } else { pass $test } When I look at the log file, with some additional put statements to print the testpid, I see that once we hit the above result, we do an XFAIL. Then the test loops around and tries to do the attach for the same testpid again. This time it times out and all the rest of the tests end up timing out for all of the remaining iterations. From the comment in the test, it seems to imply that the test expects the situation to be transient and the next attempt to attach should succeed. Well, that doesn't seem to be the case, at least for Power 10. So, it seems we need to "fix" the handling for this error? A few possibilities come to mind, 1) just exit the test on this failure; 2) try sleeping a little in the hope that the "issue" will clear up and the next attach will succeed; 3) get a new testpid and continue the test. 1) I am not really excited by this option in that if the failure occurred on the first iteration then we really haven't tested things properly. 2) I tried putting a sleep 1 in before the exp_continue. Unfortunately, that didn't fix things. In one case, I to messages on a subsequent iteration that the "program is no longer running". In another case, things just timed out as before. 3) This option basically throws out the problem testid and gets a new one. I tried this with the following change to the test: diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/attach-many-short-lived-threads.exp b/gdb /testsuite/gdb.threads/attach-many-short-lived-threads.exp index 872473aa550..2b5c80e4323 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/attach-many-short-lived-threads.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/attach-many-short-lived-threads.exp @@ -87,6 +87,15 @@ proc test {} { -re "$gdb_prompt $" { if {$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" + + # 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 } With this test we can complete all the test iterations but with different testpids. Output from the modified test for one of my test runs: Running target unix Using /usr/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for target. Using /usr/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target. Using /home/carll/GDB/build-current/gdb/testsuite/../../../binutils-gdb-current/gdb/testsuite/config/unix\ .exp as tool-and-target-specific interface file. Running /home/carll/GDB/build-current/gdb/testsuite/../../../binutils-gdb-current/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threa\ ds/attach-many-short-lived-threads.exp ... CARLL, timeout = 10 CARLL, run test on testpid = 3050726 CARLL, attempt = 1 CARLL, attempt = 2 CARLL, EPERM failue testpid = 3050726, attempt = 2 CARLL, xfail EPERM, testpid 3050726 CARLL, attempt = 3 CARLL, EPERM failue testpid = 3102706, attempt = 3 CARLL, xfail EPERM, testpid 3102706 CARLL, attempt = 4 CARLL, attempt = 5 CARLL, attempt = 6 CARLL, attempt = 7 CARLL, attempt = 8 CARLL, attempt = 9 CARLL, attempt = 10 === gdb Summary === # of expected passes 87 # of expected failures 2 This fixes the failures on Power 10. We still don't know the underlying reason for the EPERM failure in the first place. All we do is abandon that pid and continue with a new one. Any thoughts of other ways to handle the case of EPERM failure? Is there a better solution? Thoughts? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-06 18:59 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 46+ 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 [this message] 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 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 2024-05-20 20:05 ` thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org 2024-05-22 9:48 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-05-22 13:48 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
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-HyhsF5YeJ0@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).