On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:05:53PM -0500, rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient knowledge of the code to > resolve the originally reported problem without further assistance to > determine the root case (assuming it still is a problem). Changes in > master post-2.44.0 appear to have contributed to resolving the > situation, so I am now getting random pass/fail on the test. I'm going > to hold 2.44.0 on ia64 and wait for a subsequent release at retest at > that time. If you're getting random pass/fail (which does seem like the kind of thing that could be related to pipe write() sizes), you might try using the "--stress" argument. That can give you more consistent results while bisecting (e.g., if "--stress" runs successfully for a few minutes). That said, given the failing test you mentioned, I kind of assume that it was not a code change that caused the problem, but rather a new test exercising new code that happens to tickle your race. -Peff
