[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort
From: |
DJ Lucas |
Subject: |
bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:14:21 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100710 Thunderbird/3.1 |
On 11/27/2010 08:18 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> lfs [ /lfs-source-archive/coreutils-8.7-new/src ]$ cat
> /lfs-source-archive/cracklib-words-20080507 | sort -u > /dev/null; echo $?
> 0
> lfs [ /lfs-source-archive/coreutils-8.7-new/src ]$
>
> Appears to work as expected. Thanks for jumping on this so quickly.
>
Okay, so that fixes the segfault for both the original example from the
RedHat bug, and the example I submitted. However, CPU is still showing
100% utilization in the original test (from RedHat bz), and the test
that, I believe (not sure of the quoting), was submitted by PÃdraig
Brady still fails. I don't have a link to the original (maybe private
message), but it is quoted here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2010-11/msg00124.html. I ran
only the quoted test. Unrelated bug? (again, not entirely sure of the
context)
lfs [ lfs-source-archive ]$ seq 100000 > in
lfs [ lfs-source-archive ]$ mkfifo fifo
lfs [ lfs-source-archive ]$ (for i in $(seq 12); do read line; echo $i;
sleep .1; done
> cat > /dev/null) < fifo &
[1] 16123
lfs [ lfs-source-archive ]$ (ulimit -t 1; sort in > fifo \
> || echo killed via $(env kill -l $(expr $? - 128)))
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
killed via KILL
lfs [ lfs-source-archive ]$ 10
11
12
^C
[1]+ Done ( for i in $(seq 12);
do
read line; echo $i; sleep .1;
done; cat > /dev/null ) < fifo
-- DJ Lucas
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, DJ Lucas, 2010/11/26
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/26
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Pádraig Brady, 2010/11/26
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/27
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/27
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/27
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Pádraig Brady, 2010/11/27
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, DJ Lucas, 2010/11/27
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort,
DJ Lucas <=
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Pádraig Brady, 2010/11/29
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/29
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/29
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/30
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/30
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Chen Guo, 2010/11/30
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Jim Meyering, 2010/11/29
- bug#7489: [coreutils] over aggressive threads in sort, Paul Eggert, 2010/11/29