Author twouters
Recipients llllllllll, nadeem.vawda, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, steve.dower, twouters
Date 2015-04-14.18:08:13
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAPdQG2p1m_zcVgOLKuK_R=VfV8bi5N7Ao2R_qe_SFCM7RYN6fA@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1429031778.41.0.449513154215.issue5438@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Yes. The test doesn't run with more than the requested "units", but if you
run it without -M it does run with a very small number, in order to make
sure the tests don't bitrot.

The mechanism could do with an overhaul though; I wrote it in 2006 or so,
before we had test skipping and when memory limits were a lot lower (and we
had fewer, less powerful friends :) I also wonder if we should change it to
run each test in a separate process so we can more easily check the actual
memory usage.
On Apr 14, 2015 1:16 PM, "Joe Jevnik" <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>
> Joe Jevnik added the comment:
>
> I think that the idea is not to get as close to the limit as possible but
> just to hard cap the memory usage of the test suite so that it doesn't get
> oom-killed. twouters, does this sound correct? Also, I think that this
> means that the new decorator is reporting a proper size hint.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue5438>
> _______________________________________
>
History
Date User Action Args
2015-04-14 18:08:13twouterssetrecipients: + twouters, pitrou, nadeem.vawda, serhiy.storchaka, steve.dower, llllllllll
2015-04-14 18:08:13twouterslinkissue5438 messages
2015-04-14 18:08:13twouterscreate