Jim Meyering wrote: > When building with -j25 on a 6/12-core system, this test would > fail about half of the time. With the patch below, it passed > "make -j25 check" 30 times in a row. > >>From d40c2045707bad96e7a8caff2283b537163b8919 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jim Meyering <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:05:49 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] tests: avoid sort-spinlock-abuse false positive under > heavy load > > * tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse: This test would frequently fail > when run on a system under heavy load. Increase duration and limit. > --- > tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse | 9 +++++---- > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse b/tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse > index b5ca30f..fc9612c 100755 > --- a/tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse > +++ b/tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse > @@ -26,13 +26,14 @@ grep '^#define HAVE_PTHREAD_T 1' "$CONFIG_HEADER" > > /dev/null || > seq 100000 > in || framework_failure_ > mkfifo_or_skip_ fifo > > -# Arrange for sort to require 5.0+ seconds of wall-clock time, > +# Arrange for sort to require 8.0+ seconds of wall-clock time,
This was pushed, and subsequently the entire test was mostly-disabled as "very expensive", so I'm closing this.
