Re: Yocto Project Status WW47’17

[Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com>]

On 11/21/2017 07:09 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-11-20 at 20:22 -0500, Randy MacLeod wrote:
>> On 2017-11-20 10:36 AM, Jolley, Stephen K wrote:
>>> Current Dev Position: YP 2.5 Planning and M1 development
>>> Next Deadline: YP 2.5 M1 cut off of 12/4/17
>>>   
>>> SWAT team rotation: Juro -> Paul on Nov.17, 2017.
>>> SWAT team rotation: Paul -> Todor on Nov. 24, 2017.
>>> https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Build_Failure_Swat_Team
>>>   
>>> Key Status/Updates:
>>> ·        There is no real change to the status from last week. We
>>> continue to suffer intermittent build failures and are continuing
>>> to attempt to debug these.
>>> ·        Currently open issues are:
>>   
>> Some US-based people may be on holiday later this week so I'm
>> offering
>> help from the frozen Northland and more importantly from the team in
>> Beijing. ;-)
>>
>>> o   qemuppc continues to demonstrate random hangs in boot  in
>>> userspace
>>   
>> Is we can create a defect for this and point / copy the wiki notes
>> into it, that
>> would help.
>>     https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Qemuppc_Boot_Hangs
>>
>> I think I had asked Chi to see if he could reproduce this a week or
>> two ago.
>> When the lack of entropy problem was identified and fix, many people
>> thought
>> this hang went away as well. Chi can you read the wiki report and see
>> if you
>> can add anything to them?
> 
> Good news is that the qemuppc issue has been identified as a bug in
> qemu ppc locking which breaks timer interrupt handling. I've posted on
> the qemu mailing list asking for help in verifying what I think is
> happening.
> 
> I have a patch ready to merge which should address this one, just
> cleaning up my environment and doing some further stress testing.
> 
> [There is a defect somewhere for this btw, I created the wiki as it was
> a better place to dump and update information as we learnt what it
> is/is not without having to follow a train of thought updating in the
> bugzilla].
> 
>>> o   Issues with 4.13.10 host kernels booting kvm x86 guests on
>>> Tumbleweed (Suse) and Fedora 26 (attempting to see if 4.13.12
>>> helps)
>>   
>> Robert, can you test Fedora 26. It would help to have a defect open
>> with steps to reproduce or
>> something about the typical workflow/ build time/ day of the week/
>> phase of the moon.
> 
> FWIW we have noticed that the choice of kernel timers seems to vary in
> the x86_64 boots but not with a pattern that matches the hangs.
> 
>>> o   nfs inode count for the sstate/dldir share appears to break
>>> periodically causing the disk monitor to halt the builds (bug
>>> 12267)
>>   
>> Likely specific to the AB server so no plans to do anything for this
>> bug.
> 
> Agreed, this one is our infrastructure somehow :(. We have a workaround
> in -next for this at least.
> 
>>> o   a perf build race (bug 12302)
>>    I'll take a look to:
>>   - see if I can duplicate the bug on a fast build host
>>   - check upstream to see if the bug is known/fixed
>>   - see if I can spot a race in the build rules.
> 
> Sounds good, thanks!
> 
>>> o   An ext filesystem creation/sizing issue (bug 12304)
>>   
>> Saul, Are you around this week? Do you have any additional
>> information before
>> leaving for Thanksgiving?
>>
>> Jackie,
>> Can you look at the code around the image creation and try to
>> reproduce this one?
> 
> Saul hasn't been able to reproduce. I've asked at the minimum we add
> better logging so if/when this happens again, we can debug it properly
> next time. I did also wonder about fuzzing the image size code, writing
> some code which puts in all possible input values and checks the sanity
> of the resulting image size. Its the kind of problem a computer can
> probably brute force. Anyone interested in trying that?

I have interests on it, but I don't quite understand what did you mean.
Currently, the image size is from "du -sh <image_rootfs>" * factor, about
the bug 12304, it got 8192 which is the default value of core-image-minimal,
so maybe something is wrong with "du -sh", the normal value is larger than 8192.

// Robert

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
>