Increase timeout for X starting.

Increase timeout for X starting.

Increase logging of what we checked, and how long it took.

BUG=103882
TEST=Run locally.
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=130123

[Peter Mayo, 2012-03-28 21:07:44]

More tracking down why virtual X sometimes breaks.

In my test platform it doesn't seem to need retries at all, but I'd like to see
in a few more realistic situations.

[sadrul, 2012-03-28 21:09:39]

LGTM

http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/2002/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplay...
File tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/2002/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplay...
tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc:52: fprintf(stderr, "Connected after %d
tries\n", tries);
stdout (here and 76)? Or do those not get logged?

[Peter Mayo, 2012-03-28 21:15:40]

http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/2002/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplay...
File tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/2002/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplay...
tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc:52: fprintf(stderr, "Connected after %d
tries\n", tries);
On 2012/03/28 21:09:39, sadrul wrote:
> stdout (here and 76)? Or do those not get logged?
These are still tracing messages which go to stderr by convention.

[M-A Ruel, 2012-03-28 22:31:48]

http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/5001/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplay...
File tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/5001/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplay...
tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc:44: Sleep(300);
Why sleeping more versus trying more often?

[Peter Mayo, 2012-03-29 15:03:59]

On 2012/03/28 22:31:48, Marc-Antoine Ruel wrote:
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/5001/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplay...
> File tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc (right):
> 
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/5001/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplay...
> tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc:44: Sleep(300);
> Why sleeping more versus trying more often?

Because trying more often could just make the loading slower.  50 still seems
like a lot of tries.

[M-A Ruel, 2012-03-29 15:07:17]

On 2012/03/29 15:03:59, Peter Mayo wrote:
> Because trying more often could just make the loading slower.  50 still seems
> like a lot of tries.

Yes but increasing it to 300ms means the best case is still a waste of 200ms on
every test on every slave.

50 * 100 = 5 seconds + the delay open the port. It's rather slow but I'm fine to
waiting 15 seconds or so, as you are doing. I'd simply retry more often, unless
you tell me XOpenDisplay() is such a CPU-bound function that it will adversely
affect the xvfb start up when called at 10hz.

[Peter Mayo, 2012-03-29 15:20:21]

On 2012/03/29 15:07:17, Marc-Antoine Ruel wrote:
> On 2012/03/29 15:03:59, Peter Mayo wrote:
> > Because trying more often could just make the loading slower.  50 still
seems
> > like a lot of tries.
> 
> Yes but increasing it to 300ms means the best case is still a waste of 200ms
on
> every test on every slave.
> 
> 50 * 100 = 5 seconds + the delay open the port. It's rather slow but I'm fine
to
> waiting 15 seconds or so, as you are doing. I'd simply retry more often,
unless
> you tell me XOpenDisplay() is such a CPU-bound function that it will adversely
> affect the xvfb start up when called at 10hz.

In all of my tests it catches the first one.  (i.e. 0 retries)

How about linear backoff?

[M-A Ruel, 2012-03-29 15:25:18]

lgtm in any case, sorry for the annoyance.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-03-29 15:39:23]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/petermayo@chromium.org/9802038/8002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-03-29 18:39:56]

Try job failure for 9802038-8002 (retry) on win_rel for steps "ui_tests,
browser_tests".
It's a second try, previously, steps "ui_tests, browser_tests" failed.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_rel&nu...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-03-29 19:45:58]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/petermayo@chromium.org/9802038/8002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-03-29 22:28:57]

Try job failure for 9802038-8002 (retry) on win_rel for step "browser_tests".
It's a second try, previously, step "browser_tests" failed.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_rel&nu...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-03-30 12:41:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/petermayo@chromium.org/9802038/8002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-03-30 15:59:13]

Try job failure for 9802038-8002 (retry) on win_rel for step "browser_tests".
It's a second try, previously, steps "browser_tests, installer_util_unittests"
failed.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_rel&nu...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-04-02 12:51:02]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/petermayo@chromium.org/9802038/8002

[Peter Mayo, 2012-04-13 02:01:05]

Follows on to http://codereview.chromium.org/10008101/

http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/17004/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdispla...
File tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/17004/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdispla...
tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc:6: // continually retries until it connects
or 5 seconds pass.  If it fails
Should update the timeout in these comments too

[M-A Ruel, 2012-04-13 18:56:40]

http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/17004/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdispla...
File tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/17004/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdispla...
tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc:6: // continually retries until it connects
or 5 seconds pass.  If it fails
On 2012/04/13 02:01:05, Peter Mayo wrote:
> Should update the timeout in these comments too

You are self-reviewing your CL? :)

[Peter Mayo (wrong one), 2012-04-13 19:13:04]

Self-reviewing after submission no less.  If you never review mistakes, how
can you learn from them?

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM, <maruel@chromium.org> wrote:

>
> http://codereview.chromium.**org/9802038/diff/17004/tools/**
>
xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc<http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/17004/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc>
> File tools/xdisplaycheck/**xdisplaycheck.cc (right):
>
> http://codereview.chromium.**org/9802038/diff/17004/tools/**
>
xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.**cc#newcode6<http://codereview.chromium.org/9802038/diff/17004/tools/xdisplaycheck/xdisplaycheck.cc#newcode6>
> tools/xdisplaycheck/**xdisplaycheck.cc:6: // continually retries until it
> connects or 5 seconds pass.  If it fails
> On 2012/04/13 02:01:05, Peter Mayo wrote:
>
>> Should update the timeout in these comments too
>>
>
> You are self-reviewing your CL? :)
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.**org/9802038/<http://codereview.chromium.org/9802...
>



-- 

Peter Mayo | Waterloo | petermayo@google.com | 519-880-3439