pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] qa/518 tweaks on pcpfans.git fche/dev

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] qa/518 tweaks on pcpfans.git fche/dev
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:04:27 -0400
Cc: "'pcp developers'" <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <002c01cff56c$6febc830$4fc35890$@internode.on.net>
References: <20141031201304.GE1913@xxxxxxxxxx> <002c01cff56c$6febc830$4fc35890$@internode.on.net>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Hi, Ken -

> I've reviewed these Frank, and cherry-picked 'em into my tree.
> qa/518 passes, but that does not prove much because I was not seeing any
> failures with this test on my QA machines.

Yeah, figured.

> [...]  I wonder about the first one, as it seems killing -a pmie may
> produce collateral damage and indeed on the one system I tried this
> a pmie instance that has nothing to do with qa/518 was nuked.  This
> does not seem right.

It is a bit confusing.  Note that near the top of the 518 test case,
there was already:

# real QA test starts here
$sudo $signal -a pmie >/dev/null 2>&1

... so pmie instances not associated with the test are already on the
hit list.


> Do you have any additional information on the circumstances in which the
> first kill does not cause the pmie process launched by qa/518 to exit?

I'll try to trace it with something like systemtap.  (Even with pmmgr
I encountered cases where a single SIGTERM sent to pmie was
blocked/ignored, so sudo is probably not a necessary component of the
problem.)


- FChE

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>