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
> 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.
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.