Increase the KillProcess timeout when running under Valgrind

base/process_util_posix.cc

Index: base/process_util_posix.cc
===================================================================
--- base/process_util_posix.cc	(revision 84779)
+++ base/process_util_posix.cc	(working copy)
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
 #include "base/process_util.h"
 #include "base/stringprintf.h"
 #include "base/synchronization/waitable_event.h"
+#include "base/third_party/dynamic_annotations/dynamic_annotations.h"

[darin (slow to review), 2011/06/17 20:54:42]

nit: it seems a bit unintuitive that RunningOnValgrind() would be buried in this
header file.  it might help if dynamic_annotations.h declared a namespace :)

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2011/06/17 21:02:47]

That's a good point.
However, currently dynamic_annotations are C headers (not C++) and maybe having
a namespace is an overkill (it mentions Valgrind after all)

On 2011/06/17 20:54:42, darin wrote:

 #include "base/threading/platform_thread.h"
 #include "base/threading/thread_restrictions.h"
 #include "base/time.h"
@@ -223,6 +224,13 @@
 
   if (result && wait) {
     int tries = 60;
+
+    if (RunningOnValgrind()) {

[darin (slow to review), 2011/06/17 20:54:42]

OK...

In my experience 2x might not even be enough :-)

[Timur Iskhodzhanov, 2011/06/17 21:02:47]

Totally agree - average Valgrind slowdown is ~20x.

But the idea right now is to increase the timout by just a bit and see how it
changes things.

I expect more leak reports to appear = good (because earlier the children
Valgrind processes were sometimes killed in the middle of the leak check)
but some tests may become slower or even flaky = bad.

That's why I don't want to increase the timeout by 20x immediately :)
After all, maybe 2x or 5x would be enough for 99% of tests.

+      // Wait for some extra time when running under Valgrind since the child
+      // processes may take some time doing leak checking.
+      tries *= 2;
+    }
+
     // The process may not end immediately due to pending I/O
     bool exited = false;
     while (tries-- > 0) {