[RFC PATCH v9 0/8] [PIDNS] Final

[Ákos Uzonyi]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 at 01:38, Dmitry V. Levin <ldv at altlinux.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:18:43AM +0200, Ákos Uzonyi wrote:
> > From: Uzonyi Ákos <uzonyi.akos at gmail.com>
> >
> > I made the requested changes, added more test cases to trie test, and fixed some
> > trie bugs.
> >
> > The travis build [1] unfortunately shows some errors. On ppc mknod test fails,
> > but I have no idea why. Mknod is unrelated to my code. Do you have any idea?
>
> Something is broken in their ppc system: apparently, they allow the mknod
> syscall to exit without an error in cases where is must fail with EEXIST
> because the target file already exists.  This violates the contract:
> "If pathname already exists, or is a symbolic link, this call fails with
> an EEXIST error."  I suppose they use some kind of mknod interception,
> and it doesn't implement the expected semantics.
>
> We can either come up with a workaround or report a bug and let them fix it.

What seems really strange is that only the last two mknod does not
fail with EEXIST.

> > Also, pidns-cache fails on one arm build. I tried to increase the time
> > available for translation, but it didn't help.
>
> Could you add some diagnostics to the test, e.g. how much time did it take
> in the first and in the second case?  This way we could see what's going
> on.

Here are the results:
(no translation | translation with cache | translation without cache)

the 3 arm builds:
17846us   76435us   3676880us
141378us  496301us  3379754us
8699us    134754us  2974909us

on my system:
948us     9358us    916094us

s390x:
303us     2167us    110213us

The numbers seem pretty chaotic on arm. Unfortunately I can't see a
way how we could make this test work on these arm builds too.