[lldb-dev] serialized, low-load test pass in parallel test runner
Todd Fiala via lldb-dev
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Nov 27 10:58:44 PST 2015
Note this is similar to the flakey test mechanism, with the primary
difference being that the re-run is done in a minimal CPU load environment
rather than wherever the failure first occurred. The existing flakey test
rerun logic is not helpful for the high-load-induced failures that I'm
looking to handle.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> On OS X (and frankly on Linux sometimes as well, but predominently OS X),
> we have tests that will sometimes fail when under significant load (e.g.
> running the concurrent test suite, exacerbated if we crank up the number of
> threads, but bad enough if we run at "number of concurrent workers ==
> number of logical cores").
> I'm planning on adding a serialized, one-worker-only phase to the end of
> the concurrent test run, where the load is much lighter since only one
> worker will be processing at that phase. Then, for tests that fail in the
> first run, I'd re-run them in the serialized, single worker test run
> phase. On the OS X side, this would eliminate a significant number of test
> failures that are both hard to diagnose and hard to justify spending
> significant amounts of time on in the short run. (There's a whole other
> conversation to have about fixing them for real, i.e. working through all
> the race and/or faulty test logic assumptions that are stressed to the max
> under heavier load, but practically speaking, there are so many of them
> that this is going to be impractical to address in the short/mid term.).
> My question to all of you is if we'd want this functionality in top of
> tree llvm.org lldb. If not, I'll do it in one of our branches. If so,
> we can talk about possibly having a category or some other mechanism if we
> want to mark those tests that are eligible to be run in the follow-up
> serialized, low-load pass. Up front I was just going to allow any test to
> fall into that bucket. The one benefit to having it in top of tree
> llvm.org is that, once I enable test reporting on the green dragon public
> llvm.org OS X LLDB builder, that builder will be able to take advantage
> of this, and will most certainly tag fewer changes as breaking a test (in
> the case where the test is just one of the many that fail under high load).
> Let me know your thoughts either way.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lldb-dev