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

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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