Re: fc6 frysk-core failures.

[Chris Moller <cmoller at redhat dot com>]

BTW, forgot to mention the obvious:  the proximate source of that error
msg is in the brute-force kill 'em all code:

    try {
            Ptrace.detach (pid, Sig.KILL);
            logger.log (Level.FINE, "{0} detach -KILL {1,number,integer}\n",
                    new Object[] { this, child });
            }
            catch (Errno.Esrch e) {
            // Toss it.
            logger.log (Level.FINE, "{0} detach -KILL {1,number,integer}
    (failed)\n",
                    new Object[] { this, child });
            }

presumably indicating that the process identified by the pid in a
ptrace(PTRACE_DETACH, pid,....) has either already terminated or is no
longer being traced, if it ever was.  I was assuming that it can't be as
simple as a busted PTRACE_DETACH, but on the other hand...

cm


Andrew Cagney mumbled something on 09/13/2006 01:17 PM:
> Chris,
>
> This is good progress and the thing to be looking at.  Unfortunatly,
> it may, or may not be the source of the problems, hard to say right now.
>
> Broadly what is happening is that the test as successfully run (true? 
> was there an earlier message reporting fail?) and now the tearDown
> code is going through and trying to destroy (using very brute force)
> any processes created during the test's run.  The brute force process,
> put simply, throws everything and anything repeatedly at the processes
> -- kill -9, kill -cont, detach, ... -- in the hope it can be made to
> go away.  A failure here could be due to kernel differences, but could
> just as easily be a timing issue.
>
> In the log, going backwards from:
>
> testManyExistingThreadAttached(frysk.proc.TestProcTasksObserver)
>    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start tearDown
>
> what are the last few interactions involving pid 14860?  In particular
> is there anything indicating the state of that pid/tid's object.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> Chris Moller wrote:
>> Running ./frysk-core/TestRunner -c FINE frysk.proc.TestProcTasksObserver
>> fails on fc6.  The fc6 logs and the fc5 logs are, aside from minor
>> variations in the order of things, are identical until they get to:
>>
>>     12-Sep-06 11:13:47 PM frysk.proc.TestLib tearDown
>>     FINE:
>>     testManyExistingThreadAttached(frysk.proc.TestProcTasksObserver)
>>     >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start tearDown
>>
>>     12-Sep-06 11:13:47 PM frysk.proc.TestLib tearDown
>>     FINE:
>>     testManyExistingThreadAttached(frysk.proc.TestProcTasksObserver)
>>     kill -KILL 14860
>>
>>     12-Sep-06 11:13:47 PM frysk.proc.TestLib tearDown
>>     FINE:
>>     testManyExistingThreadAttached(frysk.proc.TestProcTasksObserver)
>>     kill -CONT 14860
>>
>>     12-Sep-06 11:13:47 PM frysk.proc.TestLib tearDown
>>     FINE:
>>     testManyExistingThreadAttached(frysk.proc.TestProcTasksObserver)
>>     detach -KILL 14860 (failed)
>>
>>
>>
>> under fc5, and
>>
>>     12-Sep-06 11:20:26 PM frysk.proc.TestLib tearDown
>>     FINE: testDoCloneAttached(frysk.proc.TestProcTasksObserver)
>>     >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start tearDown
>>
>>     12-Sep-06 11:20:26 PM frysk.proc.TestLib tearDown
>>     FINE: testDoCloneAttached(frysk.proc.TestProcTasksObserver) kill
>>     -KILL 29450
>>
>>     12-Sep-06 11:20:26 PM frysk.proc.TestLib tearDown
>>     FINE: testDoCloneAttached(frysk.proc.TestProcTasksObserver) kill
>>     -CONT 29450
>>
>>     12-Sep-06 11:20:26 PM frysk.proc.TestLib tearDown
>>     FINE: testDoCloneAttached(frysk.proc.TestProcTasksObserver) detach
>>     -KILL 29450
>>
>> under fc6.  I.e., prima facie, the detach -KILL seems shows a failure
>> under fc6 and a pass under fc5.  I'll poke at it some more tomorrow.
>>
>>
>>   
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature