From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: isar-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Sporadic build failure of next
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:40:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2d9c8c0c-f087-6940-89f2-72679405b886@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190820103140.GI3412@yssyq.m.ilbers.de>
On 20.08.19 12:31, Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote:
> Hello Jan,
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:37:04AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> attached a build failure of 49895c62cdca. I ran that build 3 more times, but
>> it didn't trigger an issue again. Looks like some false sharing, but I do
>> not have an idea yet of what exactly.
>
> Thanks for heads-up.
>
> ERROR: mc:de0-nano-soc-stretch:libhello-0.1-98f2e41-r0 do_build: Function failed: do_build (log file is located at /builds/ebsy/debian/isar/build/tmp/work/debian-stretch-armhf/libhello-0.1-98f2e41-r0/temp/log.do_build.56623)
> ...
> ERROR: mc:qemuarm-stretch:libhello-0.1-98f2e41-r0 do_build: Function failed: do_build (log file is located at /builds/ebsy/debian/isar/build/tmp/work/debian-stretch-armhf/libhello-0.1-98f2e41-r0/temp/log.do_build.69020)
>
> Apparently, we instruct multiconfig to run the same task twice for the same
> DISTRO and DISTRO_ARCH in the same directory, and they happen to run in
> parallel. If this is the case, we should ideally build once; not sure whether
> this is desirable for all packages, though (e.g., two boards building the
> kernel from the same source and revision, but with different configs, etc.).
>
That usually happens when we feed in a variable into the build that makes the
package different - without adjusting its name.
> I couldn't find the same failure on ci.i-b.o, but I remember some issues around
> this (related or not).
>
> Could we force building of the packages at the same time in CI? Ideas welcome.
> In this way, we could perform regression testing for concurrency.
I suspect we can when we first build multiple multiconf targets up to the level
needed to build that package and then request to build it for all those
multiconf targets.
>
> IIRC, the kernel or PREEMPT_RT has a static checker that can detect potential
> deadlocks. That would be a nice addition to bitbake (although I doubt it is
> implementable today, since it would require recipe introspection w.r.t. e.g.
> build directory, etc.).
Maybe evaluating the stamps after a build helps. There should be different
pattern of a recipe was built multiple times for the same distro-arch.
BTW, I'm about to adopt the OE layout for the stamps folder. Let's see what that
brings (beside visual alignment).
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-20 10:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-20 5:37 Jan Kiszka
2019-08-20 6:54 ` Claudius Heine
2019-08-20 7:09 ` Jan Kiszka
2019-08-20 7:37 ` Claudius Heine
2019-08-20 10:31 ` Baurzhan Ismagulov
2019-08-20 10:40 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2019-08-20 11:05 ` Baurzhan Ismagulov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2d9c8c0c-f087-6940-89f2-72679405b886@siemens.com \
--to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=isar-users@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox