Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 14:37:02 -0700 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "toolchain@freebsd.org" <toolchain@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [package - 130arm64-default][lang/gcc12-devel] Failed for gcc12-devel-12.0.1.s20220306_2 in build/runaway Message-ID: <FE5F8CCE-BBC2-4A3F-B95D-22B51C6A9833@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <75A61EB5-70D1-4E1F-89D2-524407854D6F@yahoo.com> References: <202203261416.22QEGtRR065106@ampere3.nyi.freebsd.org> <A4CB59C1-229B-4F61-837D-5B557DFA8339@FreeBSD.org> <21D1C2BF-151E-4252-936C-B5B22C9C8071@yahoo.com> <75A61EB5-70D1-4E1F-89D2-524407854D6F@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2022-Mar-26, at 13:16, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2022-Mar-26, at 12:35, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: >=20 >> On 2022-Mar-26, at 07:26, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>=20 >>> On 26 Mar 2022, at 15:16, pkg-fallout@freebsd.org = <pkg-fallout@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> You are receiving this mail as a port that you maintain >>>> is failing to build on the FreeBSD package build server. >>>> Please investigate the failure and submit a PR to fix >>>> build. >>>>=20 >>>> Maintainer: toolchain@FreeBSD.org >>>> Log URL: = http://ampere3.nyi.freebsd.org/data/130arm64-default/60ab72786154/logs/gcc= 12-devel-12.0.1.s20220306_2.log >>>> Build URL: = http://ampere3.nyi.freebsd.org/build.html?mastername=3D130arm64-default&bu= ild=3D60ab72786154 >>>=20 >>> So there isn't any actual error message in this log, except at the = end: >>>=20 >>> ... >>> =3D>> Cleaning up wrkdir >>> =3D=3D=3D> Cleaning for gcc12-devel-12.0.1.s20220306_2 >>> Killed >>> build of lang/gcc12-devel | gcc12-devel-12.0.1.s20220306_2 ended at = Sat Mar 26 14:16:58 UTC 2022 >>> build time: 12:31:35 >>> !!! build failure encountered !!! >>>=20 >>> It looks like the last command being run before "Killed" is the = cc1plus >>> executable being linked with LTO, so I am assuming the build is = killed >>> due to an out-of-memory condition? >>>=20 >>> But this is only visible to people that have access to the machine = the >>> poudriere instance is running on. Can somebody with access please = check? >>>=20 >>=20 >> I do not have access but I've started a poudriere build >> of my own on a HoneyComb. I've a patched top that monitors >> and reports various Maximum Observed (MaxObs????) figures, >> 64 GiBytes of RAM and slightly over 246 GiBytes of swap. >> So hopefully it will report on about how big the memory use >> gets. But it is allowed to use all 16 cores and there will >> be no competing bulk builds using resources. So not a match >> to the build server context. >>=20 >> Note: It is a ZFS context, so MaxObsWired is normally large >> and shrinks over times where memory needs to be used for >> other things. So the primary memory figures would be: >>=20 >> MaxObsSwapUsed (if any) >> MaxObsActive >> MaxObs(Act+Lndry+SwapUsed) >>=20 >>=20 >> Side Note: >>=20 >> = http://ampere3.nyi.freebsd.org/build.html?mastername=3D130arm64-default&bu= ild=3D60ab72786154 >>=20 >> reports a Time of 11:48:41 but the log reports "build time: = 12:31:35". >> My guess is that processing the log file for extracting the type of >> error makes some (much?) of the difference. (Type being = runaway_process >> in this case.) >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > I did just observe a cc1plus take somewhat over 30min > of CPU time before completing and the lto1 related activity > starting. It was under 5 GiBytes MaxObs(Act+Lndry+SwapUsed) > [No swap use observed] before the lto1 related activity > started. >=20 > For the lto1 related activity MaxObs(Act+Lndry+SwapUsed) > has, so far, gotten up to around 12 GiBytes, still > no swap use observed: >=20 > 12079Mi MaxObsActive > 12278Mi MaxObs(Act+Lndry+SwapUsed) >=20 > I'll note that: >=20 > last pid: . . .; load averages: . . . MaxObs: 28.02, 16.88, 15.82 > . . . threads: . . . running, . . . sleeping, 77 MaxObsRunning >=20 > So, on the timescale of the first load average, it does > not always stay limited to the hardware threads available. >=20 > No process with sustained CPU activity sticks around across > the lto1 activity. So I'll not be able to observe much about > cpu time. >=20 > The elasped time doing lto1 activity has been going for a > while but I'm unlikely to be able to observe its end happen. > So I'll likely not have a good clue about that. >=20 Looks it spent about 1.5 or so hours on the particular block of lto1 related activity. For reference, somewhat after that: last pid: . . .; load averages: . . . MaxObs: 28.02, 17.04, 16.87 The 16 core are Cortex-A72's. The following did not change (so far): 12079Mi MaxObsActive 12278Mi MaxObs(Act+Lndry+SwapUsed) Still no observed swap use reported.=20 The build is continuing. The build phase has been a little over 2.5 hr so far. =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FE5F8CCE-BBC2-4A3F-B95D-22B51C6A9833>