bug#54944: guix pull hangs on 32 bit

[Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net>]

Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> writes:

> Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> writes:
>
>> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> raingloom <raingloom@riseup.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> It's been at 67% on guix-packages-base for at least an hour now. The
>>>> system itself is responsive and with the swap I gave it, it has more
>>>> than enough memory. Htop shows three guile processes at the top of the
>>>> list when sorted by CPU%, their states are S, D, D.
>>>> Both CPUs are practically idling.
>>>> This looks like some kind of lockup to me.
>>>>
>>>> Fresh install based on bare-bones example on a 32 bit netbook, but the
>>>> install image used is the latest tagged version, since apparently there
>>>> is no 32 bit option for edge.
>>>>
>>>> I also tried pulling using channel-with-substitutes, since I'm not too
>>>> keen on locally building everything on such an old machine. Although
>>>> Guix itself should frankly not take this long to build if we want to be
>>>> competitive with other distros. Anyways, pulling with that in
>>>> channels.scm gives a cert related error, so that's great, means old
>>>> images can't easily be used for installation.
>>>
>>> Have you been able to reproduce this?  If so, could you share the commit
>>> you are starting from and the CPU architecture, so that we may hopefully
>>> reproduce too?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Maxim
>>
>> CPU architecture is x86, commit it happened on last time is 347733b.
>> Other possibly relevant factors:
>> * spinning rust storage
>> * 1GB RAM
>> * encrypted BTRFS root
>> * 4GB (encrypted) swap
>> * 128MB zswap
>>
>> The last was not there when I originally submitted the bug.
>>
>> The swap is relevant because if it's a timing issue it's very possible
>> some part of the code assumes reads are almost instant, which is not
>> true with swap, and delaying a read might be exposing a race condition.
>
> Happening again.
> pulled to: 8320c0c
> pulled from: 4501a50
>
> Same system.
>
> The system version is from november of last year due, because trying to
> upgrade takes so damn long and often gets stuck on some package with no
> substitute.
> So... the situation is not great...

The process status says sleep so it's probably hanging in a syscall?
Maybe a kernel bug?