Hi Benjamin, On 2022-12-06 11:15, Benjamin Barenblat wrote: > Control: owner 1025221 ! > Control: tags 1025221 - patch > > Hi, Manuel, > > Yesterday, I tried a build on a porterbox with your patch. It looks like > disabling parallelism improves the situation but does not completely > solve it; absl_mutex_test is still flaky. I’ll continue investigating > and see if I can get that test fixed. > > In the meantime, it looks like a recent binNMU to Abseil on riscv64 has > passed the buildds. Does that unblock your work?
Thanks for your upload fixing #1037567. Unfortunately it appears that we are now bitten by this bug with a failure in the testsuite. Would that be possible to use the same patch that you applied to the experimental branch? [1] While it doesn't fully fix the issue, it increases the chance for the testsuite to path. BTW, by just looking at the code, the problem with absl_mutex_test could be the use of rdcycle to measure the time. This counter is per CPU, so if the process is rescheduled to another CPU (which is likely in a multithreaded test) the time measurement is totally wrong. In addition rdcycle will likely going to be forbidden from the userland, for security reasons [2]. rdtime would be a better replacement here, but at this stage I haven't looked at how to change that, nor if its the real issue. Thanks, Aurelien [1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/abseil/-/commit/f4f2c1da90c4e6a0683c4e66c0268baa1b79cdf3 [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230802-7c19a712ae071f68030ab5f2@orel/T/ -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://aurel32.net
