Hi Bob, * Bob Proulx wrote on Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:36:01AM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Thanks for the report. This is a different type of failure than the > > last one, I'm glad. It is of the kind of the lost race inherent and > > unavoidable in the test: trying to find out whether parallel execution > > really is faster than sequential, is not deterministically possible > > on non-real-time systems. > > And will have quite different results on single cpu versus multi cpu > systems.
Not as much as it may seem: the tests all consist of 'sleep 1' calls. As long as the system is fast enough that the Autotest overhead per test group is small compared to one second, a single cpu system should have no problem with it. > > Was the system very loaded at the time? > > I do not know and do not keep records to be able to correlate it. [...] > For this type of test perhaps it could be reasonable to gather this > information dynamically? (e.g. with uptime) Useful debug info... Good idea. > > Note I'm not suggesting to make it less so; au contraire, this test > > part should either be disabled or made even less prone to failure in > > that case. This is the first such failure in surely a lot of test > > runs. > > If it is a different test failure then it certainly has had a lot of > test runs without producing this failure. Yes. And I have never been able to provoke it myself, even on a very loaded system like 'make check TESTSUITEFLAGS=-j'. Cheers, Ralf
