ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Alexander Sack <asac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Steve Langasek
<steve.langasek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:10:14AM +0000, Evan Dandrea wrote:
>> There's a deeper problem here. Didier informs me that they were seeing
>> a lot of crashes in unity8 with a smashed stacktrace. They realised
>> the dying unity process was getting reaped and restarted by upstart
>> while still being processed by apport because it was taking a long
>> time to collect and process the core file. They set a timeout 30s
>> (data/unity8.override in unity8-autopilot), which seemed to work
>> around the problem, but perhaps that value is being exceeded.
>
>> We need a better solution than increasing a timeout. James, does
>> upstart provide us with a better mechanism for telling it to not kill
>> a process in this state? Can we add one if not? :)
>
> I don't see how this analysis can be correct.  upstart receives no signal
> from the kernel that the process has died until after the core handler is
> finished, and if the unity8 process has died with a segfault there's no
> process for upstart to kill anyway - so the kill timeout can't be related
> here.
>
> A syslog from the time of one of these failures, with 'initctl log-priority
> info', may be enlightening.

Wonder if we should set our log priority to that level for all our
automated image testing? Thoughts?


>
> --
> Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
> Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
> Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
> slangasek@xxxxxxxxxx                                     vorlon@xxxxxxxxxx