On 07/11/2014 10:40 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
When waiting for the forked tests, we can respond quicker to a failure
(such as oom) by waiting for any child to exit rather than waiting for
each child in order. Then when we see that a test failed, we can kill
all other children before aborting.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
lib/igt_core.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/igt_core.c b/lib/igt_core.c
index 7ac7ebe..e5dc78b 100644
--- a/lib/igt_core.c
+++ b/lib/igt_core.c
@@ -915,32 +915,52 @@ bool __igt_fork(void)
*/
void igt_waitchildren(void)
{
+ int err = 0;
+ int count;
+
assert(!test_child);
- for (int nc = 0; nc < num_test_children; nc++) {
+ count = 0;
+ while (count < num_test_children) {
int status = -1;
- while (waitpid(test_children[nc], &status, 0) == -1 &&
- errno == EINTR)
- ;
+ pid_t pid;
+ int c;
- if (status != 0) {
+ pid = wait(&status);
+ if (pid == -1)
+ continue;
Not sure if it would make sense to be more defensive and maybe assert on
some errors from wait(2) here (like ECHILD). But it is the same as
before the patch so doesn't really matter.
+
+ for (c = 0; c < num_test_children; c++)
+ if (pid == test_children[c])
+ break;
+ if (c == num_test_children)
+ continue;
+
+ if (err == 0 && status != 0) {
if (WIFEXITED(status)) {
printf("child %i failed with exit status %i\n",
- nc, WEXITSTATUS(status));
- igt_fail(WEXITSTATUS(status));
+ c, WEXITSTATUS(status));
+ err = WEXITSTATUS(status);
} else if (WIFSIGNALED(status)) {
printf("child %i died with signal %i, %s\n",
- nc, WTERMSIG(status),
+ c, WTERMSIG(status),
strsignal(WTERMSIG(status)));
- igt_fail(99);
+ err = 128 + WTERMSIG(status);
} else {
- printf("Unhandled failure in child %i\n", nc);
- abort();
+ printf("Unhandled failure [%d] in child %i\n", status, c);
+ err = 256;
}
+
+ for (c = 0; c < num_test_children; c++)
+ kill(test_children[c], SIGKILL);
}
+
+ count++;
}
num_test_children = 0;
+ if (err)
+ igt_fail(err);
}
/* exit handler code */
Looks fine.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
