flight 18838 xen-unstable real [real] http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/18838/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be run: test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu 7 debian-install fail REGR. vs. 18778 Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking): test-amd64-i386-pv 7 debian-install fail pass in 18831 test-amd64-i386-xl 6 leak-check/basis(6) fail in 18831 pass in 18838 Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking: test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel 9 guest-start fail never pass test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop fail never pass test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check fail never pass test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop fail never pass test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop fail never pass test-amd64-i386-xend-qemut-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check fail never pass test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop fail never pass test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3 13 guest-stop fail never pass test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail never pass version targeted for testing: xen 062919448e2f4b127c9c3c085b1a8e1d56a33051 baseline version: xen 8a7769b4453168e23e8935a85e9a875ef5117253 ------------------------------------------------------------ People who touched revisions under test: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> Jaeyong Yoo <jaeyong.yoo@samsung.com> Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> Matt Wilson <msw@amazon.com> Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> Tomasz Wroblewski <tomasz.wroblewski@citrix.com> ------------------------------------------------------------ jobs: build-amd64 pass build-armhf pass build-i386 pass build-amd64-oldkern pass build-i386-oldkern pass build-amd64-pvops pass build-i386-pvops pass test-amd64-amd64-xl pass test-amd64-i386-xl pass test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-amd pass test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-amd pass test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd pass test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 fail test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 fail test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 fail test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 fail test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64 fail test-amd64-i386-xl-credit2 pass test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel fail test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel pass test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-intel pass test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-intel pass test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu fail test-amd64-amd64-pair pass test-amd64-i386-pair pass test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf-pin pass test-amd64-amd64-pv pass test-amd64-i386-pv fail test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf pass test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 fail test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 fail test-amd64-i386-xend-qemut-winxpsp3 fail test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 fail test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 fail test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 fail test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3 fail ------------------------------------------------------------ sg-report-flight on woking.cam.xci-test.com logs: /home/xc_osstest/logs images: /home/xc_osstest/images Logs, config files, etc. are available at http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs Test harness code can be found at http://xenbits.xensource.com/gitweb?p=osstest.git;a=summary Not pushing. (No revision log; it would be 300 lines long.)
>>> On 29.08.13 at 13:27, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > flight 18838 xen-unstable real [real] > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/18838/ > > Regressions :-( > > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, > including tests which could not be run: > test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu 7 debian-install fail REGR. vs. 18778So this failed twice in a row, making it less likely to be a heisenbug. Checking the logs, though, the only anomaly I see is smpboot: 12 Processors exceeds NR_CPUS limit of 8 smpboot: Allowing 8 CPUs, 0 hotplug CPUs but that of course doesn''t prevent the guest from coming up. At the point state gets dumped all Dom0''s CPUs are completely idle afaict, yet the login prompt shows up only after that dumping (mildly hinting at a possible idle wakeup issue). Can anyone else see anything that would explain the behavior? Jan
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 18838: regressions - FAIL"):> >>> On 29.08.13 at 13:27, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:...> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, > > including tests which could not be run: > > test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu 7 debian-install fail REGR. vs. 18778 > > So this failed twice in a row, making it less likely to be a > heisenbug. Checking the logs, though, the only anomaly I see > isNB that I think this test was using the previous kernel. I got a push in osstest for the change to use 3.10.y as the baseline, so that will start to be used now. Ian.
>>> On 29.08.13 at 17:08, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 18838: regressions - > FAIL"): >> >>> On 29.08.13 at 13:27, xen.org <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > ... >> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, >> > including tests which could not be run: >> > test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu 7 debian-install fail REGR. vs. 18778 >> >> So this failed twice in a row, making it less likely to be a >> heisenbug. Checking the logs, though, the only anomaly I see >> is > > NB that I think this test was using the previous kernel. I got a push > in osstest for the change to use 3.10.y as the baseline, so that will > start to be used now.Odd thing is that according to the logs it was already using a 3.10.9+ kernel, despite that Linux side push not having happened until an hour or two ago. But anyway - we''ll see if the next run is any better... Jan
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 18838: regressions - FAIL"):> On 29.08.13 at 17:08, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > NB that I think this test was using the previous kernel. I got a push > > in osstest for the change to use 3.10.y as the baseline, so that will > > start to be used now. > > Odd thing is that according to the logs it was already using a > 3.10.9+ kernel, despite that Linux side push not having > happened until an hour or two ago.Ah, I confess I didn''t actually check. The test report you see for the Linux tree is not relevant because it was just a "baseline" test - since the tester had never previously tested anything for that 3.10.y push gate.> But anyway - we''ll see if the next run is any better...Yes. Ian.