done
On 23 Jun 2011, at 11:38, Carsten Munk wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I think I've found a cause for our problems, but I need someone in RE
> to disable armv8el builds temporarily in Trunk:Testing to verify the
> fix, as I then can build glibc and gzip as a test in my home project.
> 
> The problem is as follows:
> 
> glibc2.13 contains this patch:
> 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2010-11/msg00009.html, :
> 
> +     * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/nptl/bits/atomic.h (atomic_full_barrier,
> +     __arch_compare_and_exchange_val_32_acq): Use the atomic builtins
> +     provided by GCC if __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_4 is defined.
> 
> And when this patch is disabled, the conftest that gzip/m4 was
> stalling with will start working again under qemu-arm (we also
> confirmed that the reverse is true, when it's applied to glibc 2.12,
> conftest will stall). It seems to be a genuine problem in qemu and
> I've verified it on top of Linaro rootfs'es as well.
> 
> My plan is:
> 
> * Get armv8el builds disabled in Trunk:Testing
> * Add a patch to #undef __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_4 for ARM
> builds in glibc, we can re-add when qemu has a fix. It shouldn't
> affect ABI/API when we re-add this.
> * Build this and verify typical packages like acl and gzip, m4 will build 
> fine.
> * Submit fixed glibc package to Trunk:Testing and ask to have this alone 
> enabled
> * When glibc package is built, re-enable armv8el
> 
> Please let me know when you've disabled the builds and I'll get right
> on verifying and submitting.
> 
> /Carsten
> 
> 
> 2011/6/22 Ulf Hofemeier <[email protected]>:
>> Boy, you are on top of things ;)
>> Ulf
>> 
>> On Jun 22, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Carsten Munk wrote:
>> 
>>> It basically sets a rlimit, signal handlers, tries to make printf fail
>>> intentionally, expects printf to fail with ENOMEM but instead it gets
>>> a sig11 which gets handled and something gets stuck along the way when
>>> exit'ing :)
>>> 
>>> http://pastie.org/2106361 is the code in question.
>>> 
>>> /Carsten
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2011/6/22 Ulf Hofemeier <[email protected]>:
>>>> That's exactly what I said yesterday. I'm not sure what "checking whether 
>>>> printf survives out-of-memory-conditions" is doing. I remember there used 
>>>> to be an issue with rpmbuild reverting to single byte reads() rather than 
>>>> doing 4k packages for ARM. This means the building would actually work, 
>>>> but is by an order of magnitude slower, which will result in OBS 
>>>> eventually killing the build process it runs into a timeout.
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 22, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Carsten Munk wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> We're still investigating, but the good news is that the qemu problem
>>>>> seems reproducable, and happens even on qemu git, linaro, qemu-meego
>>>>> and all these.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Will follow up when I have something more - it seems like some
>>>>> mishandling of signals/out of memory conditions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> /Carsten
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2011/6/22 Carsten Munk <[email protected]>:
>>>>>> Thanks for letting me know,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'll query around a bit with qemu maintainers.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> /Carsten
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2011/6/22 Hofemeier, Ulf <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>> Carsten,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Latter one. I can eventually aborted the build for gzip and m4 after
>>>>>>> nothing had happened for hours, but that was yesterday and it happened
>>>>>>> again today.
>>>>>>> Ulf
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6/21/11 9:30 PM, "Carsten Munk" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> qemu: Unsupported syscall: 369
>>>>>>>> qemu: Unsupported syscall: 369
>>>>>>>> qemu: Unsupported syscall: 369
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> is the one you refer to?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Or:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> checking whether printf survives out-of-memory conditions...
>>>>>>>> /var/run/obs/worker/1/build/build: line 1261: 27071 Killed
>>>>>>>>     chroot $BUILD_ROOT su -c /.build.command - $BUILD_USER <
>>>>>>>> /dev/null
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> (I see that in m4, gzip)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> /Carsten
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2011/6/22 Carsten Munk <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>>> I'll try to see if I can catch the qemu errors - when there's any ARM
>>>>>>>>> problems like that, please reach out to meego-packaging@ and we'll
>>>>>>>>> usually get on it asap.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (I try to keep track of the monitor but sometimes I don't catch it)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 2011/6/22 Hofemeier, Ulf <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>>>> That, plus the fact that qemu in Trunk:Testing seems to be crashing
>>>>>>>>>> reliably for gzip, m4, and db4. I'm working on restoring Trunk at
>>>>>>>>>> least.
>>>>>>>>>> Ulf
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/11 9:09 PM, "Carsten Munk" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Something went terribly wrong here:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> armv8el
>>>>>>>>>>> succeeded: 2
>>>>>>>>>>> failed: 1353
>>>>>>>>>>> unresolvable: 12
>>>>>>>>>>> excluded: 89
>>>>>>>>>>> i586
>>>>>>>>>>> failed: 1440
>>>>>>>>>>> unresolvable: 2
>>>>>>>>>>> excluded: 14
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> /Carsten
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 2011/6/22 Ulf Hofemeier <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Chris Ferron,
>>>>>>>>>>>> The following change has been accepted. See the changelog below.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The package util-linux-ng from project Trunk has been deleted.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>    Reviewed OK
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> MeeGo Release Engineering Team
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> [This message was auto-generated]
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Request #20594:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>  delete:    Trunk/util-linux-ng
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Message:
>>>>>>>>>>>>    This pacakge will be replaced by the upstream "util-linux"
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> State:   accepted     2011-06-21T19:39:10 ulf
>>>>>>>>>>>> Comment: Reviewed OK
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> History: new          2011-06-13T09:56:30 ceferron
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> MeeGo-commits mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-commits
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> MeeGo-packaging mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> MeeGo-packaging mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging

_______________________________________________
MeeGo-packaging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging

Reply via email to