> On 23 May 2023, at 13:00, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 22.05.2023 03:56, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:00 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I can easily (without gdb and sleep()) reproduce the issue on master with
>>> the following script:
>>> ...
>> Thank you for sharing the script. But it seems not stable as I could
>> not reproduce the issue in my environment. I think we need a stable
>> reproducer so that we can include it in core regression tests. Or it
>> may be okay not to include it if we could not find a convenient way
>> and the fix is trivial.
>
> I've came to the minimal reproducer:
Thanks for the reproducer, I was able to reproduce this in HEAD and v16.
> It's hardly suitable for the regression test, but it clearly demonstrates the
> issue without using gdb. With the fix from [1] applied, I've got no failures,
> even with numclients=100, for 10 runs.
>
> I also think, that the fix is simple enough to be committed without a
> complicated/resource-intensive regression test.
I'm not convinced we need a regression test for this as it would be very
expensive and potentially brittle for older/slower buildfarm members while
giving few gains.
I've applied this to HEAD and backpatched it to v16.
--
Daniel Gustafsson