python3.13 likely remains stuck in a busy-poll loop. A diagnosis report and patch proposal were created locally.
Published session
Prompt
## Plan Pass
You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.
Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.
Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `supervisor` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.
Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.
Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:
## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation
Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.
## Patch Pass
You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.
Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.
Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.
Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.
Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `supervisor` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.
Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked.
Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.
In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:
## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.
## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.
## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.
## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.
## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.
Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.
## Review Pass 1 (local metadata check)
Local metadata consistency check
## Refinement Pass 1
You are refining a fixer patch after an explicit code review.
Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Read the latest author response at `./patch-output.txt`. Read the review report at `./review-1-output.txt`. This is refinement round 1. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to compare the current patch against it. Re-read the planning pass at `./plan-output.txt` before editing. The workspace currently changes these repo-relative paths: supervisor/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/__pycache__/compat.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/__pycache__/confecho.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/__pycache__/http.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/__pycache__/options.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/__pycache__/process.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/__pycache__/states.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/__pycache__/supervisorctl.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/__pycache__/xmlrpc.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/asynchat_25.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/asyncore_25.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/auth_handler.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/counter.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/default_handler.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/filesys.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/http_date.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/http_server.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/logger.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/producers.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/util.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/xmlrpc_handler.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/base.cpython-314.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_childutils.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_confecho.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_datatypes.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_dispatchers.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_end_to_end.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_events.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_http.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_http_client.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_loggers.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_options.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_pidproxy.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_poller.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc, supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_process.cpython-314
[truncated 11560 bytes]
Response
## Plan Pass
## Problem
Fixer reported a likely busy-poll loop in `supervisord`, but the supplied trace shows repeated one-second `poll` timeouts followed by `wait4(..., WNOHANG) = -1 ECHILD`. That is consistent with an idle supervisor with no child processes, not evidence of a tight loop. The Python runtime frames do not establish a runtime defect.
## Evidence Confidence
inferred
The evidence supports a no-patch diagnosis, not a confirmed source bug. An independent source scout found a possible `PollPoller` registration issue, but the evidence does not connect it to this process’s trace or CPU signal; it should not be presented as the fix.
## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. Report that the available evidence is insufficient to identify a runaway loop, and request a capture tied to the affected process’s configuration and actual CPU activity.
## Patch Plan
- Make no source edits unless follow-up evidence identifies a script-level cause.
- The project’s entrypoint is `supervisord`; its loop in `supervisor/supervisord.py` polls with a one-second timeout, then reaps children and ticks.
- The project uses `supervisor.poller` as its poll abstraction. The possible `PollPoller` concern is separate and currently unsupported as the cause here.
- The workspace is on `master`, the upstream-style integration base. No relevant prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace.
- Follow the project’s contribution guidance in `docs/development.rst`; no change means no control-flow or helper convention to apply.
## Risks
A speculative event-loop or runtime change could alter normal supervisor behavior without addressing the reported signal. The observed `ECHILD` result is expected when there are no children to reap.
## Validation
- From the workspace root, the project’s test entrypoint is `pytest` (as configured by `tox.ini`); no separate configure or build step is defined. No patch means no tests are planned now.
- Bounded independent check: compare a fresh, time-bounded process/ syscall capture for the affected supervisor against the supplied five-second excerpt. Do not claim reproduction unless it shows sustained nonblocking loop activity or corroborating CPU use.
- Before proposing a source patch, collect the active supervisor configuration and a language-level stack or equivalent trace that ties the CPU activity to application logic.
## Patch Pass
Subject: Diagnose supervisor CPU report without a source patch
## Commit Message
No source changes. The supplied trace does not establish a supervisor busy loop: `supervisord` repeatedly waits in a one-second poll, then checks for exited child processes. A targeted code change would be speculative without evidence tying the CPU samples to a faulty code path.
## Evidence Confidence
inferred
## Issue Connection
Fixer collected Python runtime samples and a trace showing repeated one-second `poll` timeouts followed by `wait4(..., WNOHANG) = -1 ECHILD`; `/proc` reported the supervisor sleeping in the poll wait. In `supervisor/supervisord.py`, the main loop polls with a one-second timeout before reaping children and ticking, so the collected syscall sequence is consistent with an idle supervisor with no children. The samples do not identify the application code responsible for CPU use or establish a runtime defect.
A separate source inspection identified a possible `PollPoller` registration concern, but the evidence does not show which poller was active or connect that concern to the CPU samples. I made no change: the expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported fix and request a fresh capture that ties CPU activity to the active poller and application stack.
## Git Add Paths
None
## Validation
- From the workspace root, ran `pytest -q`; collection failed with 16 errors because the environment’s Python 3.14 lacks `pkg_resources`. No narrower test was run.
- Bounded independent check: ran `ps -p 2799720 -o pid,lstart,stat,pcpu,wchan,args`; no such process was present. Because the captured PID is no longer available and its active configuration is not supplied, a safe faithful reproduction was not possible.
- The repository is on `master`; `docs/development.rst` describes upstream pull requests. The loop uses the local `supervisor.poller` abstraction; no relevant helper was needed because no source change is proposed.
## Review Pass 1 (local metadata check)
RESULT: fix-needed
## Findings
1. Patch metadata drift: the workspace currently changes `supervisor/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/compat.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/confecho.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/http.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/options.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/process.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/states.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/supervisorctl.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/xmlrpc.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/asynchat_25.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/asyncore_25.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/auth_handler.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/counter.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/default_handler.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/filesys.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/http_date.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/http_server.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/logger.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/producers.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/util.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/xmlrpc_handler.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/base.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_childutils.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_confecho.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_datatypes.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_dispatchers.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_end_to_end.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_events.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_http.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_http_client.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_loggers.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_options.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_pidproxy.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_poller.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_process.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_rpcinterfaces.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_socket_manager.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_states.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_supervisorctl.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_supervisord.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_templating.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_web.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_xmlrpc.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/fixtures/__pycache__/test_1231.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, but `## Git Add Paths` lists `None`. Update `## Git Add Paths` to match the real shipped file set exactly, and make sure `## Issue Connection` explains every functional file that remains in the patch.
2. Missing from `## Git Add Paths`: `supervisor/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/compat.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/confecho.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/http.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/options.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/process.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/states.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/supervisorctl.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/__pycache__/xmlrpc.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/asynchat_25.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/asyncore_25.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/auth_handler.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/counter.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/default_handler.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/filesys.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/http_date.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/http_server.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/logger.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/producers.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/util.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/medusa/__pycache__/xmlrpc_handler.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/base.cpython-314.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_childutils.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_confecho.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_datatypes.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_dispatchers.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_end_to_end.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_events.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_http.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_http_client.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_loggers.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_options.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_pidproxy.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_poller.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_process.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_rpcinterfaces.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_socket_manager.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_states.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_supervisorctl.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_supervisord.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_templating.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_web.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/__pycache__/test_xmlrpc.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`, `supervisor/tests/fixtures/__pycache__/test_1231.cpython-314-pytest-9.1.1.pyc`.
2. Listed in `## Git Add Paths` but not actually changed: `None`.
## Refinement Pass 1
Subject: Diagnose supervisor CPU report without a source patch
## Commit Message
No source changes. The collected trace does not establish a supervisor busy loop, so a source fix would be speculative. Removed generated Python 3.14 bytecode from the workspace and restored tracked baseline bytecode.
## Evidence Confidence
inferred
## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace shows repeated one-second `poll` timeouts followed by `wait4(..., WNOHANG) = -1 ECHILD`, while `/proc` reported the supervisor sleeping in the poll wait. `supervisord`’s main loop polls with a one-second timeout before reaping children and ticking, which is consistent with an idle supervisor with no children. The Python runtime samples do not identify an application-level cause.
A separate inspection noted a possible `PollPoller` concern, but the evidence does not show that this poller was active or tie that behavior to the reported CPU signal. I made no source change; the expected effect is to avoid an unsupported fix and request a fresh capture that connects CPU activity to the active poller and application stack.
## Git Add Paths
None
## Validation
- Addressed both review findings: removed the untracked Python 3.14 bytecode artifacts and confirmed `git status` is clean. No functional files remain changed.
- `pytest -q` from the workspace root failed during collection with 16 errors because Python 3.14 lacks `pkg_resources`.
- Bounded check: `ps -p 2799720 -o pid,lstart,stat,pcpu,wchan,args` found no such process, so the captured condition could not be reproduced.
- The workspace remains on upstream-style base `master`. `docs/development.rst` describes pull requests; the event loop uses `supervisor.poller`. No helper change was needed because no source patch is proposed.
## Review Pass 2
RESULT: ok
The latest response matches the workspace: there is no source diff, and `## Git Add Paths` correctly says `None`. Its `inferred` confidence and no-patch diagnosis are consistent with the evidence; it does not claim independent reproduction. The reported `pytest -q` blocker and unavailable captured PID are stated. No actionable review findings.