Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding cpu to execution_requirements leads to failing worker #3232

Closed
abergmeier-dsfishlabs opened this issue Jun 21, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels
P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) type: bug

Comments

@abergmeier-dsfishlabs
Copy link
Contributor

Description of the problem / feature request / question:

We have a worker which works fine:

ctx.action(
    outputs = [output],
    inputs = inputs,
    executable = builder,
    arguments = arguments,
    execution_requirements = {
        "supports-workers": "1",
    },
)

When I additionally add the requirement

        "cpu:3": "",

communication with the worker fails:

Worker process quit or closed its stdin stream when we tried to send a WorkRequest:

---8<---8<--- Exception details ---8<---8<---
java.io.IOException: Stream closed
at java.lang.ProcessBuilder$NullOutputStream.write(ProcessBuilder.java:433)
at java.io.OutputStream.write(OutputStream.java:116)
at java.io.BufferedOutputStream.flushBuffer(BufferedOutputStream.java:82)
at java.io.BufferedOutputStream.flush(BufferedOutputStream.java:140)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.worker.WorkerSpawnStrategy.execInWorker(WorkerSpawnStrategy.java:319)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.worker.WorkerSpawnStrategy.actuallyExec(WorkerSpawnStrategy.java:182)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.worker.WorkerSpawnStrategy.exec(WorkerSpawnStrategy.java:131)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.worker.WorkerSpawnStrategy.exec(WorkerSpawnStrategy.java:104)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.analysis.actions.SpawnAction.internalExecute(SpawnAction.java:266)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.analysis.actions.SpawnAction.execute(SpawnAction.java:274)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.skyframe.SkyframeActionExecutor.executeActionTask(SkyframeActionExecutor.java:779)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.skyframe.SkyframeActionExecutor.prepareScheduleExecuteAndCompleteAction(SkyframeActionExecutor.java:722)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.skyframe.SkyframeActionExecutor.access$800(SkyframeActionExecutor.java:100)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.skyframe.SkyframeActionExecutor$ActionRunner.call(SkyframeActionExecutor.java:624)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.skyframe.SkyframeActionExecutor$ActionRunner.call(SkyframeActionExecutor.java:581)
at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:266)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.skyframe.SkyframeActionExecutor.executeAction(SkyframeActionExecutor.java:392)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.skyframe.ActionExecutionFunction.checkCacheAndExecuteIfNeeded(ActionExecutionFunction.java:439)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.skyframe.ActionExecutionFunction.compute(ActionExecutionFunction.java:200)
at com.google.devtools.build.skyframe.ParallelEvaluator$Evaluate.run(ParallelEvaluator.java:398)
at com.google.devtools.build.lib.concurrent.AbstractQueueVisitor$WrappedRunnable.run(AbstractQueueVisitor.java:497)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:617)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
---8<---8<--- End of exception details ---8<---8<---

Environment info

  • Operating System: Ubuntu 16.04.2
  • Bazel version (output of bazel info release): 0.5.1

Have you found anything relevant by searching the web?

Nope

@philwo
Copy link
Member

philwo commented Jun 22, 2017

That's pretty amazing and I have no idea what could cause this. I'll investigate. 😳

@philwo philwo self-assigned this Jun 22, 2017
@philwo philwo added P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) type: bug labels Jun 22, 2017
@abergmeier-dsfishlabs
Copy link
Contributor Author

I now had this error even without the cpu arg. So this is probably a corruption rather than connected to that flag.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) type: bug
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants