* Re: kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures [not found] <632464ba.630a0220.d15ef.6eca@mx.google.com> @ 2022-09-16 12:57 ` Guillaume Tucker 2022-09-16 16:28 ` Vlastimil Babka 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Guillaume Tucker @ 2022-09-16 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vlastimil Babka, Hyeonggon Yoo Cc: kernelci-results-staging, kernelci, Brendan Higgins, David Gow, Shuah Khan Hello, On 16/09/2022 13:57, staging.kernelci.org bot wrote: > kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures > > Summary > ======= > > Tree: kernelci > Branch: staging-next > Describe: staging-next-20220916.0 > URL: https://github.com/kernelci/linux.git > SHA1: d2957623a1103bf8971b0754bc04193dce0dbde2 > > Name | Result | Total | Failures > ----------------+----------+----------+--------- > kunit | fail | 244 | 4 > kver | pass | 0 | 0 > fstests | None | 247 | 5 > > > Failing tests > ============= > > kunit > ----- > > * slub_test.test_next_pointer > * slub_test.test_first_word > * slub_test.test_clobber_50th_byte > * slub_test.test_clobber_redzone_free We're just starting to run KUnit in Kubernetes with the new KernelCI API & pipeline and these failures showed up on next-20220916. Here's the details from the log: [12:52:08] ================== slub_test (5 subtests) ================== [12:52:08] [PASSED] test_clobber_zone [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:50 [12:52:08] Expected 3 == slab_errors, but [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:62 [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 [12:52:08] not ok 2 - test_next_pointer [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_next_pointer [12:52:08] # test_first_word: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:85 [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 [12:52:08] not ok 3 - test_first_word [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_first_word [12:52:08] # test_clobber_50th_byte: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:100 [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 [12:52:08] not ok 4 - test_clobber_50th_byte [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_50th_byte [12:52:08] # test_clobber_redzone_free: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:117 [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 [12:52:08] not ok 5 - test_clobber_redzone_free [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_redzone_free [12:52:08] # Subtest: slub_test [12:52:08] 1..5 [12:52:08] # slub_test: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5 [12:52:08] # Totals: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5 [12:52:08] not ok 23 - slub_test [12:52:08] ==================== [FAILED] slub_test ==================== I've reproduced them by hand with the same Docker environment so it seems valid but it would be great if you could please confirm. Are they known failures, and do you know when they were introduced? They're not failing in mainline afaict. We'll be adding support for tracking regressions soon so we'll be able to know when failures start to appear automatically. For now, it's useful to double check we're producing valid results. Thanks, Guillaume ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures 2022-09-16 12:57 ` kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures Guillaume Tucker @ 2022-09-16 16:28 ` Vlastimil Babka 2022-09-16 22:17 ` Vlastimil Babka 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2022-09-16 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guillaume Tucker, Hyeonggon Yoo Cc: kernelci-results-staging, kernelci, Brendan Higgins, David Gow, Shuah Khan On 9/16/22 14:57, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > Hello, > > On 16/09/2022 13:57, staging.kernelci.org bot wrote: >> kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures >> >> Summary >> ======= >> >> Tree: kernelci >> Branch: staging-next >> Describe: staging-next-20220916.0 >> URL: https://github.com/kernelci/linux.git >> SHA1: d2957623a1103bf8971b0754bc04193dce0dbde2 >> >> Name | Result | Total | Failures >> ----------------+----------+----------+--------- >> kunit | fail | 244 | 4 >> kver | pass | 0 | 0 >> fstests | None | 247 | 5 >> >> >> Failing tests >> ============= >> >> kunit >> ----- >> >> * slub_test.test_next_pointer >> * slub_test.test_first_word >> * slub_test.test_clobber_50th_byte >> * slub_test.test_clobber_redzone_free > > We're just starting to run KUnit in Kubernetes with the new > KernelCI API & pipeline and these failures showed up on > next-20220916. Here's the details from the log: > > [12:52:08] ================== slub_test (5 subtests) ================== > [12:52:08] [PASSED] test_clobber_zone > [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:50 > [12:52:08] Expected 3 == slab_errors, but > [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 > [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:62 > [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but > [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 > [12:52:08] not ok 2 - test_next_pointer > [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_next_pointer > [12:52:08] # test_first_word: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:85 > [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but > [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 > [12:52:08] not ok 3 - test_first_word > [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_first_word > [12:52:08] # test_clobber_50th_byte: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:100 > [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but > [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 > [12:52:08] not ok 4 - test_clobber_50th_byte > [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_50th_byte > [12:52:08] # test_clobber_redzone_free: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:117 > [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but > [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 > [12:52:08] not ok 5 - test_clobber_redzone_free > [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_redzone_free > [12:52:08] # Subtest: slub_test > [12:52:08] 1..5 > [12:52:08] # slub_test: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5 > [12:52:08] # Totals: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5 > [12:52:08] not ok 23 - slub_test > [12:52:08] ==================== [FAILED] slub_test ==================== > > > I've reproduced them by hand with the same Docker environment so > it seems valid but it would be great if you could please confirm. > Are they known failures, and do you know when they were > introduced? They're not failing in mainline afaict. Hi, what's the .config here please? Thanks. > We'll be adding support for tracking regressions soon so we'll be > able to know when failures start to appear automatically. For > now, it's useful to double check we're producing valid results. > > Thanks, > Guillaume ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures 2022-09-16 16:28 ` Vlastimil Babka @ 2022-09-16 22:17 ` Vlastimil Babka 2022-09-17 7:01 ` Guillaume Tucker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2022-09-16 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guillaume Tucker, Hyeonggon Yoo Cc: kernelci-results-staging, kernelci, Brendan Higgins, David Gow, Shuah Khan On 9/16/22 18:28, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 9/16/22 14:57, Guillaume Tucker wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On 16/09/2022 13:57, staging.kernelci.org bot wrote: >>> kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures >>> >>> Summary >>> ======= >>> >>> Tree: kernelci >>> Branch: staging-next >>> Describe: staging-next-20220916.0 >>> URL: https://github.com/kernelci/linux.git >>> SHA1: d2957623a1103bf8971b0754bc04193dce0dbde2 >>> >>> Name | Result | Total | Failures >>> ----------------+----------+----------+--------- >>> kunit | fail | 244 | 4 >>> kver | pass | 0 | 0 >>> fstests | None | 247 | 5 >>> >>> >>> Failing tests >>> ============= >>> >>> kunit >>> ----- >>> >>> * slub_test.test_next_pointer >>> * slub_test.test_first_word >>> * slub_test.test_clobber_50th_byte >>> * slub_test.test_clobber_redzone_free >> >> We're just starting to run KUnit in Kubernetes with the new >> KernelCI API & pipeline and these failures showed up on >> next-20220916. Here's the details from the log: >> >> [12:52:08] ================== slub_test (5 subtests) ================== >> [12:52:08] [PASSED] test_clobber_zone >> [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:50 >> [12:52:08] Expected 3 == slab_errors, but >> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 >> [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:62 >> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but >> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 >> [12:52:08] not ok 2 - test_next_pointer >> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_next_pointer >> [12:52:08] # test_first_word: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:85 >> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but >> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 >> [12:52:08] not ok 3 - test_first_word >> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_first_word >> [12:52:08] # test_clobber_50th_byte: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:100 >> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but >> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 >> [12:52:08] not ok 4 - test_clobber_50th_byte >> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_50th_byte >> [12:52:08] # test_clobber_redzone_free: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:117 >> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but >> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 >> [12:52:08] not ok 5 - test_clobber_redzone_free >> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_redzone_free >> [12:52:08] # Subtest: slub_test >> [12:52:08] 1..5 >> [12:52:08] # slub_test: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5 >> [12:52:08] # Totals: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5 >> [12:52:08] not ok 23 - slub_test >> [12:52:08] ==================== [FAILED] slub_test ==================== >> >> >> I've reproduced them by hand with the same Docker environment so >> it seems valid but it would be great if you could please confirm. >> Are they known failures, and do you know when they were >> introduced? They're not failing in mainline afaict. > > Hi, what's the .config here please? > Thanks. Nevermind, reproduced it and will fix soon, thanks! Wonder why no other existing bot didn't report it sooner, it's been in next for a while - they don't run kunit tests? >> We'll be adding support for tracking regressions soon so we'll be >> able to know when failures start to appear automatically. For >> now, it's useful to double check we're producing valid results. >> >> Thanks, >> Guillaume > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures 2022-09-16 22:17 ` Vlastimil Babka @ 2022-09-17 7:01 ` Guillaume Tucker 2022-09-19 10:04 ` Vlastimil Babka 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Guillaume Tucker @ 2022-09-17 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vlastimil Babka, Hyeonggon Yoo Cc: kernelci-results-staging, kernelci, Brendan Higgins, David Gow, Shuah Khan On 17/09/2022 00:17, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 9/16/22 18:28, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 9/16/22 14:57, Guillaume Tucker wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On 16/09/2022 13:57, staging.kernelci.org bot wrote: >>>> kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures >>>> >>>> Summary >>>> ======= >>>> >>>> Tree: kernelci >>>> Branch: staging-next >>>> Describe: staging-next-20220916.0 >>>> URL: https://github.com/kernelci/linux.git >>>> SHA1: d2957623a1103bf8971b0754bc04193dce0dbde2 >>>> >>>> Name | Result | Total | Failures >>>> ----------------+----------+----------+--------- >>>> kunit | fail | 244 | 4 >>>> kver | pass | 0 | 0 >>>> fstests | None | 247 | 5 >>>> >>>> >>>> Failing tests >>>> ============= >>>> >>>> kunit >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> * slub_test.test_next_pointer >>>> * slub_test.test_first_word >>>> * slub_test.test_clobber_50th_byte >>>> * slub_test.test_clobber_redzone_free >>> >>> We're just starting to run KUnit in Kubernetes with the new >>> KernelCI API & pipeline and these failures showed up on >>> next-20220916. Here's the details from the log: >>> >>> [12:52:08] ================== slub_test (5 subtests) ================== >>> [12:52:08] [PASSED] test_clobber_zone >>> [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:50 >>> [12:52:08] Expected 3 == slab_errors, but >>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 >>> [12:52:08] # test_next_pointer: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:62 >>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but >>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 >>> [12:52:08] not ok 2 - test_next_pointer >>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_next_pointer >>> [12:52:08] # test_first_word: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:85 >>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but >>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 >>> [12:52:08] not ok 3 - test_first_word >>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_first_word >>> [12:52:08] # test_clobber_50th_byte: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:100 >>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but >>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 >>> [12:52:08] not ok 4 - test_clobber_50th_byte >>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_50th_byte >>> [12:52:08] # test_clobber_redzone_free: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/slub_kunit.c:117 >>> [12:52:08] Expected 2 == slab_errors, but >>> [12:52:08] slab_errors == 0 >>> [12:52:08] not ok 5 - test_clobber_redzone_free >>> [12:52:08] [FAILED] test_clobber_redzone_free >>> [12:52:08] # Subtest: slub_test >>> [12:52:08] 1..5 >>> [12:52:08] # slub_test: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5 >>> [12:52:08] # Totals: pass:1 fail:4 skip:0 total:5 >>> [12:52:08] not ok 23 - slub_test >>> [12:52:08] ==================== [FAILED] slub_test ==================== >>> >>> >>> I've reproduced them by hand with the same Docker environment so >>> it seems valid but it would be great if you could please confirm. >>> Are they known failures, and do you know when they were >>> introduced? They're not failing in mainline afaict. >> >> Hi, what's the .config here please? >> Thanks. > > Nevermind, reproduced it and will fix soon, thanks! Great! Since this was reported by a KernelCI email, could you please add this to your fix? Reported-by: "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org> It was using the plain default config, I've put it here anyway: https://storage.staging.kernelci.org/images/tmp/kunit-config We'll soon be adding artifacts to test results, I guess we can include the config file in that. > Wonder why no other existing bot didn't report it sooner, it's been in next > for a while - they don't run kunit tests? I suppose we're the first public CI system to be running KUnit... Glad that helped, sounds like a very good start. Thanks, Guillaume ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures 2022-09-17 7:01 ` Guillaume Tucker @ 2022-09-19 10:04 ` Vlastimil Babka 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2022-09-19 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guillaume Tucker, Hyeonggon Yoo Cc: kernelci-results-staging, kernelci, Brendan Higgins, David Gow, Shuah Khan On 9/17/22 09:01, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > On 17/09/2022 00:17, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 9/16/22 18:28, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>> On 9/16/22 14:57, Guillaume Tucker wrote: >>>> Hello, >>> >>> Hi, what's the .config here please? >>> Thanks. >> >> Nevermind, reproduced it and will fix soon, thanks! > > Great! Since this was reported by a KernelCI email, could you > please add this to your fix? > > Reported-by: "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org> I'd love to, but it was still possible to amend the broken commit and Reported-by: for the whole of it would be misleading. We currently lack a standard way for giving the report credit in such situation :/ > > It was using the plain default config, I've put it here anyway: > > https://storage.staging.kernelci.org/images/tmp/kunit-config > > We'll soon be adding artifacts to test results, I guess we can > include the config file in that. > >> Wonder why no other existing bot didn't report it sooner, it's been in next >> for a while - they don't run kunit tests? > > I suppose we're the first public CI system to be running KUnit... > Glad that helped, sounds like a very good start. Yep, thanks a lot! > Thanks, > Guillaume > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-09-19 10:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <632464ba.630a0220.d15ef.6eca@mx.google.com>
2022-09-16 12:57 ` kernelci/staging-next staging-next-20220916.0: 3 runs 1 failures Guillaume Tucker
2022-09-16 16:28 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-09-16 22:17 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-09-17 7:01 ` Guillaume Tucker
2022-09-19 10:04 ` Vlastimil Babka
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.