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

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 10:56 +0100, 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...

I've now managed to reproduce using the arndale on my desk.

I'm just starting to dig in to the issue.

So far the only thing I've concluded is that the message comes from
netback try to read the script node for inclusion in the hotplug
invocation's environment.

I wonder if perhaps the spinlock change has just exposed a pre-existing
race?

Ian.


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