ollama likely remains stuck in an unclassified userspace 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 `local-executable-upstream-git`. 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.
Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `cmake -S . -B build-fix -G Ninja && cmake --build build-fix && ctest --test-dir build-fix --output-on-failure`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.
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 `github.com_ollama_ollama` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 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 `local-executable-upstream-git`. 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.
Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `cmake -S . -B build-fix -G Ninja && cmake --build build-fix && ctest --test-dir build-fix --output-on-failure`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.
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 `github.com_ollama_ollama` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.
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
You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.
Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `local-executable-upstream-git`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.
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 `github.com_ollama_ollama` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.
Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `cmake -S . -B build-fix -G Ninja && cmake --build build-fix && ctest --test-dir build-fix --output-on-failure`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and
[truncated 365 bytes]
Response
## Plan Pass
## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/local/bin/ollama serve` with an indirect profiler signal: 54 threads, futex waits, process state sleeping, low sampled CPU around 0.4%, unresolved stripped frames, and no symbolized source hotspot. The raw investigation artifact directory referenced by `evidence.json` is not present, so the bundled summary cannot be tied to a specific Go function or runner path.
## Evidence Confidence
inferred
## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: collect a symbolized `ollama serve` profile before changing scheduler or runner code.
## Patch Plan
Do not edit source in this pass. The evidence is profiler-only and classifies the loop as `unknown-userspace-loop` with confidence `0.42`, which is not enough for an upstream-ready bug fix.
Base any future patch on upstream `main`; the workspace is already on `main...origin/main`. Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md`: package-style subject, lowercase continuation title, and behavior-focused tests. Relevant local conventions/helpers found: `logutil.NewLogger`, `logutil.Trace`, `slog` structured logging, and `server/internal/internal/syncs.Group`; no file IO or process helper is relevant to the current evidence.
If additional evidence identifies a concrete scheduler/runner loop, inspect `cmd.RunServer`, `server.Serve`, `server/sched.go`, `llm/server.go`, and the active runner implementation first. Prefer a bounded structured-control fix over awkward retry `goto` flow. No prior Fixer patch is present in the workspace (`git diff` is empty), so there is nothing to replace.
## Risks
A speculative change to scheduler expiration, runner lifecycle, or background goroutine behavior would risk altering model unload timing, request cancellation, concurrency, or resource recovery without proving it addresses the observed process. The current futex-heavy sample may also be normal idle Go/runtime behavior.
## Validation
First try the project-level entrypoint from the workspace root:
```sh
cmake -S . -B build-fix -G Ninja && cmake --build build-fix && ctest --test-dir build-fix --output-on-failure
```
If that fails due to missing generated files or optional native dependencies, record the exact failure and then run the narrowest relevant check, likely `go test ./server ./llm ./cmd` or the package identified by the new symbolized hotspot.
Bounded independent reproduction attempt before any patch: run a locally built `ollama serve` with temporary `HOME`, `OLLAMA_MODELS`, and an unused localhost port, then sample CPU/thread state and, if available, a symbolized Go/pprof or perf profile. Only classify as reproduced if that command shows the same hot signal with a source-level hotspot.
## Patch Pass
Subject: diagnostics: require symbolized ollama serve profile
## Commit Message
No source patch is included. The collected signal is an unsymbolized profiler/strace sample of `ollama serve`, and it does not identify an upstream code path strongly enough for a pull-request-ready fix.
## Evidence Confidence
inferred
## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `/usr/local/bin/ollama serve` with 54 threads, repeated `futex(..., FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE, ...)` calls, process state `S (sleeping)`, and about 0.4% CPU. The hottest path was an unresolved offset in the stripped `ollama` binary, and the evidence classified the loop as `unknown-userspace-loop` with confidence `0.42`.
The likely root cause from the available perf, strace, and `/proc` evidence is not a proven busy loop in Ollama source. It looks more like many Go/runtime or worker threads blocked on futex waits, with a small amount of scheduler/runtime activity. Because the frames are unsymbolized and the raw investigation artifact directory is unavailable, I cannot tie the sample to `cmd.RunServer`, `server.Serve`, `server/sched.go`, `llm/server.go`, or a runner loop.
No code change was made. I followed the saved plan in `plan-output.txt`, which said not to patch without a symbolized hotspot. The expected effect is no behavior change; this avoids sending maintainers a speculative scheduler or runner lifecycle patch without source-level evidence.
Upstream conventions checked: repository branch is `main`, `CONTRIBUTING.md` asks for package-style lowercase commit subjects and behavior-focused tests, and `docs/development.md` documents `cmake`, `go run . serve`, and `go test ./...`. Relevant local patterns found include `logutil.NewLogger`, `logutil.Trace`, structured `slog`, and `server/internal/internal/syncs.Group`; no helper was applicable because no source API was introduced.
## Git Add Paths
None
## Validation
Attempted project-level validation from the workspace root:
```sh
cmake -S . -B build-fix -G Ninja && cmake --build build-fix && ctest --test-dir build-fix --output-on-failure
```
Result: failed during CMake configure. Exact blocker: `Could NOT find Vulkan (missing: glslc) (found version "1.4.341")`.
Attempted narrower relevant check:
```sh
GOCACHE=/tmp/ollama-go-build-cache GOPATH=/tmp/ollama-gopath GOTMPDIR=/tmp go test ./cmd ./server ./llm
```
Result: failed before compilation because dependencies were not cached and network is blocked. Exact blocker included `Get "https://proxy.golang.org/...": dial udp 127.0.0.53:53: socket: operation not permitted`.
Attempted bounded independent reproduction against the installed binary with temporary `HOME`, `OLLAMA_MODELS`, and nondefault `OLLAMA_HOST`:
```sh
HOME="$tmp/home" OLLAMA_MODELS="$tmp/models" OLLAMA_HOST=127.0.0.1:21435 /usr/local/bin/ollama serve
```
Result: blocked by sandbox networking before sampling. Exact blocker: `Error: listen tcp 127.0.0.1:21435: socket: operation not permitted`.
## Review Pass 1
RESULT: ok
The pass is acceptable as a no-patch diagnosis. The workspace has no source diff, which matches the `inferred` evidence level and the profiler-only evidence bundle. The response includes the required sections, does not invent a reproducer, reports the project-level CMake command and exact `glslc` blocker, and documents the narrower Go test and independent reproduction blockers.
It also names the upstream branch/conventions and relevant local helpers, and it keeps the causal claim appropriately cautious: futex waits plus low CPU and unresolved frames are not enough to justify a scheduler or runner source patch.