Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.3-testing test] 63948: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 04:35 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 11.11.15 at 12:25, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 03:58 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 10.11.15 at 18:59, <osstest-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > flight 63948 xen-4.3-testing real [real]
> > > > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/63948/ 
> > > > 
> > > > Regressions :-(
> > > > 
> > > > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> > > > including tests which could not be run:
> > > > Âtest-amd64-amd64-migrupgrade 21 guest-migrate/src_host/dst_host
> > > > fail
> > > > REGR. vs. 63212
> > > 
> > > This having failed for quite some time, I've finally looked more
> > > closely
> > > and found
> > > 
> > > Nov 10 14:36:16.949051 (XEN) vmce.c:88: PV restore: unsupported MCA
> > > capabilities 0x1000802 for d1:v0 (supported: 0)
> > > 
> > > to be the reason for the EPERM here
> > > 
> > > xc: error: Couldn't set extended vcpu0 info (1 = Operation not
> > > permitted): Internal error
> > > 
> > > Taking apart the value, it is MCG_SER_P | MCG_TES_P (the low 8 bits
> > > get masked out anyway), which is in line with 4.2's GUEST_MCG_CAP.
> > > Hence I would guess that previous successful runs of this test would
> > > have been on Intel systems only; I can't see how this test would ever
> > > succeed on AMD ones.
> > 
> > FWIW you can find the history of any given test at a URL like:
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-
> > amd64 
> > -migrupgrade/xen-4.3-testing.html
> > 
> > Figuring out the arch of the machines is a bit of a faff, especially
> > since
> > some of the relevant logs no longer exist. From
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/host/huxelrebe0.htm
> > l 
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/host/godello0.html 
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/host/pinot0.html 
> > 
> > I found recent logs which confirm (via the serial log):
> > Huxelrebe:
> > ÂÂÂÂCPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1225 v3 @ 3.20GHz stepping 03
> > Godello:
> > ÂÂÂÂCPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1220 v3 @ 3.10GHz stepping 03
> > Pinot:
> > ÂÂÂÂCPU0: AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 3350 HEÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂstepping 00
> > 
> > With Huxelrebe passing and godello and pinot failing this doesn't seem
> > to
> > correlate with your investigation though.
> 
> Looking at that history page you point me to, I see passes on
> godello.

Uh, yes, two brainfarts on my part, first in mixing up that result,
secondly in inverting which one I thought you were saying worked vs didn't.
Sorry.

> 
> > > ÂConsidering that 4.3 is out of maintenance, I
> > > think the only reasonable change to avoid endless failure here is to
> > > limit this test to Intel systems for this version.
> > 
> > Aside from the above I don't think osstest is currently aware of the
> > vendor
> > of the processors (although I can certainly think of several reasons it
> > should be).
> > 
> > But given this is a new test case I would be happy, I think, to
> > restrict it
> > to only go back as far as the earliest release which was in maintenance
> > at
> > the time the test was introduced (August this year), or maybe (if
> > something
> > just dropped out of maintenance recently) just the ones maintained
> > today
> > (since it took a while for the test case to "bed in" and be made
> > working on
> > some of the older ones). FWIW the last related fix I see in osstest was
> > early October.
> 
> That would be fine too.

I'll wait for Ian to have an opinion before doing anything.

Ian.

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