[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: runaway avocado

From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: runaway avocado
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:59:23 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0

On 2/11/21 8:21 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 18:47, Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 05:37:20PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> I wonder if we could have avocado run all our acceptance cases
>>> under a 'ulimit -f' setting that restricts the amount of disk
>>> space they can use? That would restrict the damage that could
>>> be done by any runaways. A CPU usage limit might also be good.
>> To me that sounds a lot like Linux cgroups.
> ...except that ulimits are a well-established mechanism that
> is straightforward, works for any user and is cross-platform
> for most Unixes, whereas cgroups are complicated, Linux specific,
> and AIUI require root access to set them up and configure them.

I agree with Peter, having being POSIX compliant is better than
restricting to (recent) Linux. But also note we have users interested
running tests for Windows builds. See the Cirrus-CI.

>> We can have a script setting up a cgroup as part of a
>> gitlab-ci.{yml,d} job for the jobs that will run on the non-shared
>> GitLab runners (such as the s390 and aarch64 machines owned by the
>> QEMU project).
>> Does this sound like a solution?
> We want a solution that works for anybody running
> "make check-acceptance" in any situation, not just for
> the CI runners.

Indeed. Public CI time being limited, I expect users to run tests
elsewhere. We don't mind about data loss on CI runners.

FWIW similar complain last year:



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]