[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 56759: regressions - FAIL



Hi Ian,

On 26/05/2015 11:17, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 11:11 +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,

On 20/05/2015 11:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 09:34 +0000, osstest service user wrote:
flight 56759 xen-unstable real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/56759/

Regressions :-(

Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
   test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu 17 leak-check/check         fail REGR. vs. 
56375

I'm pretty hard pressed to explain this from the set of commits
currently under test, but it has happened a few times now (e.g. 56700
56576) so it does seem to be real.

http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/bisect.xen-unstable.test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu.leak-check--check.html
is working on it and is currently consider the set of changes from:
ianc@cosworth:xen.git$ git log --oneline 9ab42~1...45fcc4
45fcc45 use ticket locks for spin locks
e13013d libxc/restore: add checkpointed flag to the restore context
ce44b40 libxc/restore: introduce setup() and cleanup() on restore
c5c5a04 libxc/restore: split read/handle qemu info
9ab42c9 libxc/restore: introduce process_record()

where e13013d is current master which was pushed in by flight 56375.

I think it unlikely the libxl stuff is responible, given we don't
migrate on ARM, which would seem to point to the ticket locks...

The test is still failing on the latest flight [1]. Any update on this
issue?

The bisection got nowhere.

I've tried to repro on the cubietruck on my desk and have gotten
nowhere.

But I've just now noticed that the failures are on arndale (not sure why
I thought ct).

We use the same Xen binary (hypervisor/tools) and the both platform right?

I'm wondering if it's because the processor revision is not the same and we forgot to implement an errata.

Can I steal the arndale off your desk please?

Go ahead.

BTW, it doesn't seem to be a 100% failure rate, e.g. 57271 seems to have
passed, despite testing the exact same thing as 57242.

I sometimes saw another test failing for ARM too.

Regards,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.