Re: Bug#994426: octave-sparsersb: flaky autopkgtest on ci.d.n armhf worker
On 20210916@13:58, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Michele,
>
> On 16-09-2021 12:26, Michele Martone wrote:
> > I suggest to set OMP_NUM_THREADS to something small before tests -- say,
> > min(nproc,4) -- for all purposes of testing librsb and octave-sparsersb.
> > For architectural reasons, using all the cores (e.g.160) is nonsense here.
> > Is that okay?
>
> That's up to you. I don't really care what you do to make the behavior
> sane. (For avoidance of doubt, I mean the test should do this itself,
> we're not going to set non-default variables on our infrastructure).
You are (well, your CI is) building librsb with support for a limited threads
count, but invoking it on a machine with lots of cores, without specifying
the limited threads count.
So the behavior of librsb wrt this situation (it complains) is sane --
the user building it shall also know on how many threads to run it (and
160 won't make any sense for the next few years)..
> > Would be great if you could try the tarball I linked at the beginning of
> > the email -- I'm using some 'unsigned' prints -- that shall help a bit
> > (one bit ;-) .
>
> That's too much work for me (I now just kick of a test of the package in
> the archive). I suggest you just upload fixed packages.
Let's see if I get access to that exotic machine, otherwise it's not trivial
to fix all potential surprises..
Reply to: