[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xen-unstable test] 166960: regressions - FAIL
- To: Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@xxxxxxxx>, "osstest-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <osstest-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:28:39 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=PfMUgWkwhuc1Awis3HnVZ7TrZivKWDi3kMQnxfLnlS0=; b=JTjXyR91w8GWrJWEGr40rawhZ3pw+eSq7rmLHCYC2IZajfc+A1D3Ar39nYxf52T0PVPoNw1ukttM3F/ojxO8SmMk77OktHRiHPEgTsbM8Ox3XhJtCMlkc5J3cuWZnBEG/HQu2NypHxDmh6lEBappJ2FgVm4ac5LWUP+MrXt770auxBD8Tr1Jnfn1EunF1qeKQPdfqr/3xxqXMXnx/IABtoN/k1g0+5OUgCbRgVIl4wc+Rbw1S9u2KSmW2qzXKlkEgn6hllmtdVtG2JR5cXHrUowHKjZcXsZ/+Df4Y94s4PIOZEvpLhvrZCEleqRhI2q4EgLemnoZI1CYMBbKngFM9Q==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Gh9sQ1RvvQ4U+PwEE9IeXuZUyV+JIbg/KhIb7Sbw1R7WCj+ZF6qAgX1MKAnB0E0Uw32lxygxSvPW0qAN1U7NCR6vIvXGtOICdjTJtSFvy4aUpg7ll9Mu7gkjIcNsbSZAOzfKoeNY7QUfZPN1SgKKGTK3e/nGZ+KEKZVF2ctlp7V8YBfGnsmLC5/LnagyW3yD1xllYODGis3GCYR9/R7kmuGE4DNmha5O8z1HsPpV2CLwpZeHzFusB9qwJnIB9Ln3YFcN0y5NVivISFIUKgRuScbckvkSNZIIzouSwOhQDuofigTNmJxcdZnWKcWk//LN3EAYJ904QB0MrRfPuVVjxw==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 11:29:00 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 02.12.2021 11:44, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> Hey! So, I noticed this osstests report and got curious about one
> thing, which looks weird to me... If I am missing something obvious,
> sorry for the noise.
>
> On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 05:43 +0000, osstest service owner wrote:
>> test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu 18 guest-start/debian.repeat fail REGR.
>> vs. 166941
>> test-armhf-armhf-xl-credit2 18 guest-start/debian.repeat fail REGR.
>> vs. 166941
>>
> It's about these tests above.
>
> In fact, from, e.g., [1], I see that we have 2 pCPUs:
>
> nr_cpus : 2
> ...
> cpu_topology :
> cpu: core socket node
> 0: 0 0 0
> 1: 0 0 0
>
> At the same time, in [2] and [3], I see that we're trying to run a
> guest with 4 vCPUs. E.g.:
>
> Name ID Mem VCPUs State Time(s)
> Domain-0 0 512 2 r-----
> 468.5
> debian.guest.osstest 3 511 4 -b----
> 21.1
>
> Isn't it the case that a guest that has more vCPUs than the host has
> pCPUs is conceptually wrong and, even if it sometimes works, prone to
> (heisen)bugs?
Imo this should conceptually work, as long as you don't go too far
and as long as the workload isn't overly timing sensitive.
The debian.repeat step has first started failing on the full staging
test, but this now has extended to smoke flights as well. I haven't
been able to spot anything in the logs ...
Jan
|
