* [LTP] clone01 -c 10 on x86 @ 2009-08-03 12:23 Michal Simek 2009-08-03 15:14 ` Serge E. Hallyn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Michal Simek @ 2009-08-03 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: LTP Hi All, can you please to run clone01 syscall test on any x86 machine? I am getting fault there when I run it 10 times for example. The same problem I have on Microblaze. ./clone01 -c 10 clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22738 clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22740 clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22742 clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22748 clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22750 clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22752 clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22754 clone01 1 TFAIL : clone() returned 134919589, errno = 22755 [monstr@monstr clone]$ clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22744 clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22746 Thanks, Michal -- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng) PetaLogix - Linux Solutions for a Reconfigurable World w: www.petalogix.com p: +61-7-30090663,+42-0-721842854 f: +61-7-30090663 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] clone01 -c 10 on x86 2009-08-03 12:23 [LTP] clone01 -c 10 on x86 Michal Simek @ 2009-08-03 15:14 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-08-04 12:08 ` Subrata Modak 2009-08-13 7:53 ` Mike Frysinger 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-08-03 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michal Simek; +Cc: LTP Quoting Michal Simek (michal.simek@petalogix.com): > Hi All, > > can you please to run clone01 syscall test on any x86 machine? I am > getting fault there when I run it 10 times for example. > The same problem I have on Microblaze. > > ./clone01 -c 10 > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22738 > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22740 > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22742 > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22748 > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22750 > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22752 > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22754 > clone01 1 TFAIL : clone() returned 134919589, errno = 22755 > [monstr@monstr clone]$ clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22744 > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22746 > > Thanks, > Michal All right I don't have the patiente to wade through the parse_opts and usc_lib crap, but this is not a clone failure. What appears to be happening is setup() at the top of clone01.c is calling lib/parse_opts.c:usc_global_setup_hook(), with STD_COPIES set to the count option you passed in. That forks of 10 copies of the test. I don't know what happens with the actual loop then, but the reason you get the error for the last clone test is that one of those forked copies of clone01 (*not* one of the cloned children) exits, and wait() catches that one. That is why wait() returned 22744, which isn't any of the cloned children. So one stupid way of fixing this without dealing with the convoluted setup junk would be to change the waitpid chunk of the code like so: --- /usr/src/ltp-intermediate-20090721/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clone/clone01.c 2009-03-23 09:35:39.000000000 -0400 +++ /usr/src/ltp-intermediate-20090721.patched/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clone/clone01.c 2009-08-03 11:11:25.000000000 -0400 @@ -130,6 +132,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) (do_child, child_stack + CHILD_STACK_SIZE, SIGCHLD, NULL)); #endif +again: if ((child_pid = wait(&status)) == -1) { tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "wait() failed; error no =" " %d, %s", errno, strerror(errno)); @@ -138,11 +141,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) /* check return code */ if (TEST_RETURN == child_pid) { tst_resm(TPASS, "clone() returned %d", TEST_RETURN); - } else { - tst_resm(TFAIL, "clone() returned %d, errno = %d ", - "wait() returned %d", TEST_RETURN, TEST_ERRNO, + } else if (TEST_RETURN == -1) { + tst_resm(TFAIL, "clone() returned %d, errno = %d wait() returned %d\n", TEST_RETURN, TEST_ERRNO, child_pid); - } + } else + goto again; } /* End for TEST_LOOPING */ -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] clone01 -c 10 on x86 2009-08-03 15:14 ` Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-08-04 12:08 ` Subrata Modak 2009-08-04 15:31 ` Michal Simek 2009-08-13 7:53 ` Mike Frysinger 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Subrata Modak @ 2009-08-04 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn; +Cc: LTP On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 10:14 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Michal Simek (michal.simek@petalogix.com): > > Hi All, > > > > can you please to run clone01 syscall test on any x86 machine? I am > > getting fault there when I run it 10 times for example. > > The same problem I have on Microblaze. > > > > ./clone01 -c 10 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22738 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22740 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22742 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22748 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22750 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22752 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22754 > > clone01 1 TFAIL : clone() returned 134919589, errno = 22755 > > [monstr@monstr clone]$ clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22744 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22746 > > > > Thanks, > > Michal > > All right I don't have the patiente to wade through the parse_opts > and usc_lib crap, but this is not a clone failure. What appears to > be happening is setup() at the top of clone01.c is calling > lib/parse_opts.c:usc_global_setup_hook(), with STD_COPIES set to the > count option you passed in. That forks of 10 copies of the test. > I don't know what happens with the actual loop then, but the reason > you get the error for the last clone test is that one of those > forked copies of clone01 (*not* one of the cloned children) exits, > and wait() catches that one. That is why wait() returned 22744, > which isn't any of the cloned children. > > So one stupid way of fixing this without dealing with the convoluted > setup junk would be to change the waitpid chunk of the code like so: Yes, it fixes the issue. Regards-- Subrata > > > --- /usr/src/ltp-intermediate-20090721/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clone/clone01.c 2009-03-23 09:35:39.000000000 -0400 > +++ /usr/src/ltp-intermediate-20090721.patched/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clone/clone01.c 2009-08-03 11:11:25.000000000 -0400 > @@ -130,6 +132,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) > (do_child, child_stack + CHILD_STACK_SIZE, SIGCHLD, NULL)); > #endif > > +again: > if ((child_pid = wait(&status)) == -1) { > tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "wait() failed; error no =" > " %d, %s", errno, strerror(errno)); > @@ -138,11 +141,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) > /* check return code */ > if (TEST_RETURN == child_pid) { > tst_resm(TPASS, "clone() returned %d", TEST_RETURN); > - } else { > - tst_resm(TFAIL, "clone() returned %d, errno = %d ", > - "wait() returned %d", TEST_RETURN, TEST_ERRNO, > + } else if (TEST_RETURN == -1) { > + tst_resm(TFAIL, "clone() returned %d, errno = %d wait() returned %d\n", TEST_RETURN, TEST_ERRNO, > child_pid); > - } > + } else > + goto again; > > } /* End for TEST_LOOPING */ > > > -serge > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july > _______________________________________________ > Ltp-list mailing list > Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] clone01 -c 10 on x86 2009-08-04 12:08 ` Subrata Modak @ 2009-08-04 15:31 ` Michal Simek 2009-08-04 17:32 ` Serge E. Hallyn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Michal Simek @ 2009-08-04 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: subrata; +Cc: LTP Subrata Modak wrote: > On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 10:14 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >> Quoting Michal Simek (michal.simek@petalogix.com): >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> can you please to run clone01 syscall test on any x86 machine? I am >>> getting fault there when I run it 10 times for example. >>> The same problem I have on Microblaze. >>> >>> ./clone01 -c 10 >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22738 >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22740 >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22742 >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22748 >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22750 >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22752 >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22754 >>> clone01 1 TFAIL : clone() returned 134919589, errno = 22755 >>> [monstr@monstr clone]$ clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22744 >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22746 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Michal >>> >> All right I don't have the patiente to wade through the parse_opts >> and usc_lib crap, but this is not a clone failure. What appears to >> be happening is setup() at the top of clone01.c is calling >> lib/parse_opts.c:usc_global_setup_hook(), with STD_COPIES set to the >> count option you passed in. That forks of 10 copies of the test. >> I don't know what happens with the actual loop then, but the reason >> you get the error for the last clone test is that one of those >> forked copies of clone01 (*not* one of the cloned children) exits, >> and wait() catches that one. That is why wait() returned 22744, >> which isn't any of the cloned children. >> >> So one stupid way of fixing this without dealing with the convoluted >> setup junk would be to change the waitpid chunk of the code like so: >> > > Yes, it fixes the issue. > Yes, but as Serge wrote above his patch just cover different fault not solve it. Regards, Michal > Regards-- > Subrata > > >> --- /usr/src/ltp-intermediate-20090721/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clone/clone01.c 2009-03-23 09:35:39.000000000 -0400 >> +++ /usr/src/ltp-intermediate-20090721.patched/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clone/clone01.c 2009-08-03 11:11:25.000000000 -0400 >> @@ -130,6 +132,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) >> (do_child, child_stack + CHILD_STACK_SIZE, SIGCHLD, NULL)); >> #endif >> >> +again: >> if ((child_pid = wait(&status)) == -1) { >> tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "wait() failed; error no =" >> " %d, %s", errno, strerror(errno)); >> @@ -138,11 +141,11 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) >> /* check return code */ >> if (TEST_RETURN == child_pid) { >> tst_resm(TPASS, "clone() returned %d", TEST_RETURN); >> - } else { >> - tst_resm(TFAIL, "clone() returned %d, errno = %d ", >> - "wait() returned %d", TEST_RETURN, TEST_ERRNO, >> + } else if (TEST_RETURN == -1) { >> + tst_resm(TFAIL, "clone() returned %d, errno = %d wait() returned %d\n", TEST_RETURN, TEST_ERRNO, >> child_pid); >> - } >> + } else >> + goto again; >> >> } /* End for TEST_LOOPING */ >> >> >> -serge >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day >> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on >> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with >> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july >> _______________________________________________ >> Ltp-list mailing list >> Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list >> > > -- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng) PetaLogix - Linux Solutions for a Reconfigurable World w: www.petalogix.com p: +61-7-30090663,+42-0-721842854 f: +61-7-30090663 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] clone01 -c 10 on x86 2009-08-04 15:31 ` Michal Simek @ 2009-08-04 17:32 ` Serge E. Hallyn 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-08-04 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michal Simek; +Cc: LTP Quoting Michal Simek (michal.simek@petalogix.com): > Subrata Modak wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 10:14 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > >> Quoting Michal Simek (michal.simek@petalogix.com): > >> > >>> Hi All, > >>> > >>> can you please to run clone01 syscall test on any x86 machine? I am > >>> getting fault there when I run it 10 times for example. > >>> The same problem I have on Microblaze. > >>> > >>> ./clone01 -c 10 > >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22738 > >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22740 > >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22742 > >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22748 > >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22750 > >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22752 > >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22754 > >>> clone01 1 TFAIL : clone() returned 134919589, errno = 22755 > >>> [monstr@monstr clone]$ clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22744 > >>> clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22746 > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Michal > >>> > >> All right I don't have the patiente to wade through the parse_opts > >> and usc_lib crap, but this is not a clone failure. What appears to > >> be happening is setup() at the top of clone01.c is calling > >> lib/parse_opts.c:usc_global_setup_hook(), with STD_COPIES set to the > >> count option you passed in. That forks of 10 copies of the test. > >> I don't know what happens with the actual loop then, but the reason > >> you get the error for the last clone test is that one of those > >> forked copies of clone01 (*not* one of the cloned children) exits, > >> and wait() catches that one. That is why wait() returned 22744, > >> which isn't any of the cloned children. > >> > >> So one stupid way of fixing this without dealing with the convoluted > >> setup junk would be to change the waitpid chunk of the code like so: > >> > > > > Yes, it fixes the issue. > > > Yes, but as Serge wrote above his patch just cover different fault not > solve it. Although that depends on what we think the fault really is. The reason we were getting fail messages was that children were exiting which we were (wrongly) not expecting. Now, I don't understand why setup() forks off N tasks, and it would probably be best to not do that. But in the end so long as we ignore when those tasks are reaped, it really doesn't matter that there were extra children. We are testing that clone(2) succeeded now, which is what we really care about. -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] clone01 -c 10 on x86 2009-08-03 15:14 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-08-04 12:08 ` Subrata Modak @ 2009-08-13 7:53 ` Mike Frysinger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Mike Frysinger @ 2009-08-13 7:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp-list [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2258 bytes --] On Monday 03 August 2009 11:14:49 Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Michal Simek (michal.simek@petalogix.com): > > can you please to run clone01 syscall test on any x86 machine? I am > > getting fault there when I run it 10 times for example. > > The same problem I have on Microblaze. > > > > ./clone01 -c 10 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22738 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22740 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22742 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22748 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22750 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22752 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22754 > > clone01 1 TFAIL : clone() returned 134919589, errno = 22755 > > [monstr@monstr clone]$ clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22744 > > clone01 1 TPASS : clone() returned 22746 > > All right I don't have the patiente to wade through the parse_opts > and usc_lib crap, but this is not a clone failure. What appears to > be happening is setup() at the top of clone01.c is calling > lib/parse_opts.c:usc_global_setup_hook(), with STD_COPIES set to the > count option you passed in. That forks of 10 copies of the test. > I don't know what happens with the actual loop then, but the reason > you get the error for the last clone test is that one of those > forked copies of clone01 (*not* one of the cloned children) exits, > and wait() catches that one. That is why wait() returned 22744, > which isn't any of the cloned children. > > So one stupid way of fixing this without dealing with the convoluted > setup junk would be to change the waitpid chunk of the code like so: since there is no wait*() func that i'm aware of that says "only wait for children/siblings", we need to create a dedicated process group for each test. do we know if any LTP test relies on process groups via the -c option ? i highly doubt this, so i'd propose we add a call to setpgid() in the parse_opts code that does the forking so that every child is in its own process group (just like if -c isnt used at all). then the clone01 test should magically work without any changes as should any other test that uses wait*() funcs. -mike [-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part. --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july [-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 155 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-08-13 7:53 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-08-03 12:23 [LTP] clone01 -c 10 on x86 Michal Simek 2009-08-03 15:14 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-08-04 12:08 ` Subrata Modak 2009-08-04 15:31 ` Michal Simek 2009-08-04 17:32 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-08-13 7:53 ` Mike Frysinger
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox