GNU bug report logs - #9737
misc/timeout-group: spurious test failure on SLES 10.3 (coreutils 8.14)

Previous Next

Package: coreutils;

Reported by: "Voelker, Bernhard" <bernhard.voelker <at> siemens-enterprise.com>

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:06:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: "Voelker, Bernhard" <bernhard.voelker <at> siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
Cc: "9737 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <9737 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: bug#9737: misc/timeout-group: spurious test failure on SLES 10.3 (coreutils 8.14)
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:27:39 +0200
Pádraig Brady wrote:

> On 10/13/2011 04:58 PM, Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
>> reopen 9737
>> thanks
>> 
>> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> 
>>> Bah, this is just a racy test I think.
>>> Hopefully the attached fixes it.
>> 
>> Thank you for the patch.
>> 
>> I tried it 16 times:
>> 
>* 14x PASS, execution time real < 0.4s
>> 
>> * 1x test failure (in the 5th run)
>
> So the command exited without receiving SIGINT.
> Or perhaps the touch of the 'received.int' file
> is being done asynch. Anything special about your
> file system?

It's a virtual host on a ESX server farm in our data center.

ecs <at> mchp320a:~/berny/depot/coreutils-8.14/tests> uname -a
Linux mchp320a 2.6.16.60-0.74.7-smp #1 SMP Fri Nov 26 09:16:10 UTC 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

ecs <at> mchp320a:~/berny/depot/coreutils-8.14/tests> df -h .
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/vg01-lvol0
                       50G   15G   33G  31% /user

ecs <at> mchp320a:~/berny/depot/coreutils-8.14/tests> mount | grep /user
/dev/mapper/vg01-lvol0 on /user type ext3 (rw,acl,user_xattr)

>> * 1x the test lasted 20s (in the 16th run)
>
> But this one passed, which means the command
> did receive the SIGINT, but then didn't exit?

Sounds like one error is shadowing another.

> I'm confused, sorry,
> Pádraig.

That's strange, indeed.

I repeated the test with < 0.2 load 100 times:
the run #5, #18, #28, #53, #58 and #71 resulted in FAIL as above,
and the run #24 and #25 PASSed but took 20 seconds,
all other PASSed within <=0.3s.

Have a nice day,
Berny



This bug report was last modified 13 years and 206 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.