[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#527567: marked as done (eglibc: FTBFS: regression in tst-eintr1)

Your message dated Sun, 10 May 2009 19:19:00 +0200
with message-id <20090510171900.GT8077@hall.aurel32.net>
and subject line Re: eglibc: FTBFS: regression in tst-eintr1
has caused the Debian Bug report #527567,
regarding eglibc: FTBFS: regression in tst-eintr1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

527567: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=527567
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: eglibc
Version: 2.9-11

I've experienced a testsuite failure again:

| # Testsuite failures, someone should be working towards
| # fixing these! They are listed here for the purpose of
| # regression testing during builds.
| # Format: <Failed test>, Error <Make error code> [(ignored)]
| #
| annexc.out, Error 1 (ignored)
| check-localplt.out, Error 1
| tst-cancelx4.out, Error 1
| tst-cancelx5.out, Error 1
| tst-eintr1.out, Error 1
| ***************
| Encountered regressions that don't match expected failures:
| tst-eintr1.out, Error 1

The failing test is this one:

| GCONV_PATH=/usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/iconvdata LC_ALL=C     /usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/elf/ld-linux.so.2 --library-path /usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc:/usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/math:/usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/elf:/usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/dlfcn:/usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/nss:/usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/nis:/usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/rt:/usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/resolv:/usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/crypt:/usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/nptl /usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/nptl/tst-eintr1  > /usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/nptl/tst-eintr1.out
| Expected signal 'Alarm clock' from child, got none
| make[3]: *** [/usr/local/src/deb-src/eglibc/eglibc-2.9/build-tree/i386-libc/nptl/tst-eintr1.out] Error 1

The tst-eintr1.out file has this content:

.......tf1: pthread_create failed: Resource temporarily unavailable

This is not always reproducible, but running the test repeatedly failed
in 86 out of 100 invocations. 

-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 05:42:35PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2009-05-10 10:25 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 09:18:56AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >> 
> >> does not show the problem (repeated the test a few dozen
> >> times), but all 2.6.29 kernels I've tested have it, including Debian's
> >> official 2.6.29-2-amd64 package.  Under 2.6.30-rc5 the test fails as
> >> well.
> >> 
> >> Which kernel do you use?
> >
> > I am using a 2.6.28-1-amd64, while the build daemons are using a 
> > 2.6.26-2-amd64 one, that's probably why I am not able to reproduce the
> > problem.
> It seems I found out the reason why the test fails on my system.  To
> protect myself against fork bombs, I've put the following values into
> /etc/security/limits.conf:
> ,----
> | *		 soft	 nproc		 250
> | *		 hard	 nproc		 400
> `----
> Apparently these limits are too low for the high number of threads that
> tst-eintr1 creates, so it gets the EAGAIN error.  Something regarding
> thread handling must have changed between 2.6.28 and 2.6.29.
> Looks like I have to experiment with the nproc limit, but the bug should
> probably be closed or reassigned to linux-2.6.

If the failure is primarily due to limits.conf, my guess is that kernel
2.6.29 is more efficient in creating threads and the limit is reached 
earlier. Therefore I think there is no point in reassigning this bug to

I am closing this bug with this mail.

Aurelien Jarno	                        GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

--- End Message ---

Reply to: