[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Improve and extend test cond5.test.
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Improve and extend test cond5.test. |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:50:17 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-04-22) |
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:32:02PM CEST:
> At Thursday 24 June 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Do you have an old system?
> Well, it's not new :-)
>
> $ cat /proc/cpuinfo
> model name : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1800+
> $ free | awk '(NR == 2) { print $2 }'
> 774904
Hehe.
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.80GHz
1035964
The RAM upgrade helped wonders.
> > What was
> > the highest $try that you needed, 30 seems a bit excessive, no?
> I preferred to err on the side of caution. After all, if the test
> script works correctly, it exits much earlier than after 30 tries
> (usually 1 try is enough). Also, I'm not expecting to see the bug it
> looks for cropping up often, so even if the test takes 5 minutes in
> the unlikely situation of a bug's reapperence, that's not a problem
> IMHO.
Agreed.
> > I wonder what the current lower bound on PID reuse is on systems.
> > There are certainly systems which use only 32K PIDs, and process
> > creation can easily be thousand per second. I hope that 10
> > seconds are still safe.
> I think that the possibility of a spurious failure here is very very
> low. But I might be wrong, and it would fine by me having, say, 100
> tries every 3 seconds instead of 30 tries every 10 seconds. Your
> call.
Just to avoid a possible misunderstanding here: the issue I want to
avoid is that we kill an unrelated process due to PID reuse. That would
be ugly. Of course, 10 s is already better than 60 s.
Oh well, let's just take your values for now.
Cheers,
Ralf