This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: comparing parallel test runs


On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 05:22:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 05/17/2017 11:19 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> writes:
> > 
> > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 09:13:40AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > On 05/17/2017 04:23 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > > > Hi folks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've been having troubles comparing the results of different test runs
> > > > > for quite some time, and have finally decided to whine about it. Perhaps
> > > > > someone can point out to whatever I may be doing wrong.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I generally do "make check -k -j60" on two different trees and compare
> > > > Make sure you've got Andi's patch installed and report back.  It's
> > > > supposed to help with smaller -j loads, but it's unclear if it's enough
> > > > to address the problems with higher loads like you're using.
> > > 
> > > I'm still seeing spurious tree-prof failures there (with -j48).
> > 
> > Do they go away if you run first (as root)
> > 
> > echo 5000 > /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_mlock_kb
> > 
> > first?
> 
> I tried three runs of the profiling tests and the failures did
> clear up with the increased setting.

I tried setting that but I still saw a very small number of tree-prof failures,
at least in one of the runs.  But it did help - thanks.

	Marek


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]