xen.org
2012-Sep-24 21:58 UTC
[xen-unstable test] 13861: regressions - trouble: blocked/broken/fail/pass
flight 13861 xen-unstable real [real]
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/13861/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-amd64-i386-win-vcpus1 5 xen-boot fail REGR. vs. 13825
build-amd64-pvops 2 host-install(2) broken REGR. vs. 13825
test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu 5 xen-boot fail in 13837 REGR. vs. 13825
test-amd64-i386-xl-win-vcpus1 5 xen-boot fail in 13837 REGR. vs. 13825
test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-intel 5 xen-boot fail in 13837 REGR. vs. 13825
test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64 5 xen-boot fail in 13837 REGR. vs. 13825
test-amd64-amd64-win 5 xen-boot fail in 13837 REGR. vs. 13825
test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3 5 xen-boot fail in 13837 REGR. vs. 13825
test-amd64-i386-pair 8 xen-boot/dst_host fail in 13837 REGR. vs. 13825
test-amd64-i386-pair 7 xen-boot/src_host fail in 13837 REGR. vs. 13825
Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking):
test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel 5 xen-boot fail pass in 13837
test-amd64-i386-xl-credit2 5 xen-boot fail pass in 13837
test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu 3 host-install(3) broken pass in 13848
test-amd64-i386-xl-win-vcpus1 3 host-install(3) broken pass in 13848
test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-intel 3 host-install(3) broken pass in 13859
test-amd64-i386-pv 3 host-install(3) broken pass in 13859
test-amd64-i386-xl 3 host-install(3) broken pass in 13848
test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64 3 host-install(3) broken pass in 13848
test-amd64-i386-pair 3 host-install/src_host(3) broken pass in 13848
test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 12 guest-localmigrate/x10 fail in 13837 pass in
13848
test-amd64-amd64-pv 5 xen-boot fail in 13848 pass in 13841
test-amd64-i386-xl-credit2 3 host-install(3) broken in 13848 pass in 13861
test-amd64-i386-win-vcpus1 3 host-install(3) broken in 13848 pass in 13861
Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf-pin 10 guest-saverestore fail in 13837 like 13825
test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf 3 host-install(3) broken in 13837 like 13825
test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel 5 xen-boot fail in 13837 REGR. vs. 13825
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 9 guest-localmigrate fail in 13837 like
13823
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 9 guest-localmigrate fail in 13837 like
13825
Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf-pin 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check fail never pass
test-amd64-i386-win 16 leak-check/check fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-xl 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-pv 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 13 guest-stop fail never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-win 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-xl-win 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-pair 1 xen-build-check(1) blocked n/a
test-amd64-amd64-xl-win 13 guest-stop fail in 13837 never pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 13 guest-stop fail in 13848 never pass
version targeted for testing:
xen 8f658b463b78
baseline version:
xen d364becfb083
------------------------------------------------------------
People who touched revisions under test:
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
------------------------------------------------------------
jobs:
build-amd64 pass
build-i386 pass
build-amd64-oldkern pass
build-i386-oldkern pass
build-amd64-pvops broken
build-i386-pvops pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl blocked
test-amd64-i386-xl broken
test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-amd pass
test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd pass
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64 blocked
test-amd64-amd64-xl-win7-amd64 blocked
test-amd64-i386-xl-win7-amd64 broken
test-amd64-i386-xl-credit2 fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel blocked
test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel fail
test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-intel broken
test-amd64-i386-xl-multivcpu broken
test-amd64-amd64-pair blocked
test-amd64-i386-pair broken
test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf-pin blocked
test-amd64-amd64-pv blocked
test-amd64-i386-pv broken
test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf blocked
test-amd64-i386-win-vcpus1 fail
test-amd64-i386-xl-win-vcpus1 broken
test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 fail
test-amd64-amd64-win blocked
test-amd64-i386-win fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-win blocked
test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3 blocked
test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 fail
test-amd64-amd64-xl-winxpsp3 blocked
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------
changeset: 25938:8f658b463b78
tag: tip
user: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
date: Fri Sep 21 17:02:46 2012 +0200
x86: enable VIA CPU support
Newer VIA CPUs have both 64-bit and VMX support. Enable them to be
recognized for these purposes, at once stripping off any 32-bit CPU
only bits from the respective CPU support file, and adding 64-bit ones
found in recent Linux.
This particularly implies untying the VMX == Intel assumption in a few
places.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
changeset: 25937:32187301ecc5
user: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
date: Fri Sep 21 15:20:21 2012 +0200
x86: eliminate code affecting only 64-bit-incapable CPUs
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
changeset: 25936:c8873f13cec3
user: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
date: Fri Sep 21 14:25:12 2012 +0200
printk: prefer %#x et at over 0x%x
Performance is not an issue with printk(), so let the function do
minimally more work and instead save a byte per affected format
specifier.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
changeset: 25935:1e6e6b49b4ac
user: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
date: Fri Sep 21 13:47:18 2012 +0200
x86: introduce MWAIT-based, ACPI-less CPU idle driver
This is a port of Linux''es intel-idle driver serving the same
purpose.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
changeset: 25934:8eab91903e71
user: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
date: Fri Sep 21 13:45:08 2012 +0200
cpuidle: remove unused latency_ticks member
... and code used only for initializing it.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
changeset: 25933:d364becfb083
user: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
date: Thu Sep 20 13:31:19 2012 +0200
introduce guest_handle_for_field()
This helper turns a field of a GUEST_HANDLE in a GUEST_HANDLE.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
(qemu changes not included)
Ian Jackson
2012-Sep-25 08:44 UTC
Re: [xen-unstable test] 13861: regressions - trouble: blocked/broken/fail/pass
xen.org writes ("[xen-unstable test] 13861: regressions - trouble:
blocked/broken/fail/pass"):> build-amd64-pvops 2 host-install(2) broken REGR. vs. 13825
This is another machine having forgotten that it was supposed to boot
from the network. It''s itch-mite, the twin of the other test box
gall-mite which had this problem yesterday.
That two identical machines have had this happen within days suggests
that somehow something done to them recently has corrupted their
CMOS, rather than it being a random event.
Jan, do you think it at all plausible that the cpuidle-related Xen bug
is somehow responsible ? TBH it doesn''t seem all that likely because
I''ve checked gall-mite and the CMOS is still fine, even though the
machine has experienced several of these crashes.
Ian.
Jan Beulich
2012-Sep-25 09:05 UTC
Re: [xen-unstable test] 13861: regressions - trouble: blocked/broken/fail/pass
>>> On 25.09.12 at 10:44, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > xen.org writes ("[xen-unstable test] 13861: regressions - trouble: > blocked/broken/fail/pass"): >> build-amd64-pvops 2 host-install(2) broken REGR. vs. 13825 > > This is another machine having forgotten that it was supposed to boot > from the network. It''s itch-mite, the twin of the other test box > gall-mite which had this problem yesterday. > > That two identical machines have had this happen within days suggests > that somehow something done to them recently has corrupted their > CMOS, rather than it being a random event. > > Jan, do you think it at all plausible that the cpuidle-related Xen bug > is somehow responsible ? TBH it doesn''t seem all that likely because > I''ve checked gall-mite and the CMOS is still fine, even though the > machine has experienced several of these crashes.No, I don''t see how this ought to be connected. Given previous occasions, is it perhaps that early Xen crashes (maybe in connection with the way Xen reboots the system afterwards) cause this independent of the reason for the crash? Or is there any sort of boot cycle detection active on those systems? Jan
Ian Jackson
2012-Sep-25 09:16 UTC
Re: [xen-unstable test] 13861: regressions - trouble: blocked/broken/fail/pass
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 13861: regressions - trouble:
blocked/broken/fail/pass"):
On 25.09.12 at 10:44, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
wrote:> > Jan, do you think it at all plausible that the cpuidle-related Xen bug
> > is somehow responsible ? TBH it doesn''t seem all that likely
because
> > I''ve checked gall-mite and the CMOS is still fine, even
though the
> > machine has experienced several of these crashes.
>
> No, I don''t see how this ought to be connected.
Thanks for the reply.
> Given previous occasions, is it perhaps that early Xen crashes
> (maybe in connection with the way Xen reboots the system afterwards)
> cause this independent of the reason for the crash? Or is there any
> sort of boot cycle detection active on those systems?
These are interesting theories. If there is any sort of boot cycle
detection I don''t think it''s not configurable in the CMOS, as
I went
through all of that when I set the machines up.
Thanks.
Ian.