From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [xen-4.4-testing test] 25979: regressions - FAIL Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:19:11 +0100 Message-ID: <535A6EDF020000780000C4DB@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <535A646C020000780000C461@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1398426383.18537.432.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Wdf61-0000PU-Ud for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:19:14 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1398426383.18537.432.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: xen-devel , ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 25.04.14 at 13:46, wrote: > On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 12:34 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 25.04.14 at 13:11, wrote: >> > flight 25979 xen-4.4-testing real [real] >> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/25979/ >> > >> > Regressions :-( >> > >> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, >> > including tests which could not be run: >> > test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3 7 windows-install fail REGR. vs. > 25794 >> >> This has been failing for the last several runs, yet again without >> me being able to see anything suspicious in the logs. The screen >> shots of the guest suggest it came mostly up, but may still be >> doing something before being fully up. Yet again, just like noted >> for one of the -unstable failures recently, the 4th boot of the >> guest is suspiciously close to the 7000s timeout... > > The diff between 25794 and now is: > 139a62e xen/arm: vgic: Check rank in GICD_ICFGR* emulation before locking > fc070bc xen: x86 & generic: change to __builtin_prefetch() > cbd5a0c x86/mm: fix checks against max_mapped_pfn > da8e158 xen/arm: Don't let guess access to Debug and Performance Monitor regist > 8f416fc xen/arm: Don't expose implementation defined registers (Cp15 c15) to th > 4642a21 xen/arm: Trap cache and TCM lockdown registers > 16ef39e xen/arm: Upgrade DCISW into DCCISW > 9800bfa xen/arm: Don't let the guest access the coprocessors registers > ed13367 xen/arm: Inject an undefined instruction when the coproc/sysreg is not > > Most of which is irrelevant to an x86 test. Unless fc070bc (unlikely) or > cbd5a0c (I cannot judge) made windows installs slower? > > How long did the fourth boot take in 25794 I wonder? 6247s (ran on lace-bug) > The other possibility is that this is host specific, and that lake-frog > is just slow compared with other machines. Since osstest is sticky to > hosts on failures all the tests since the initial failure in 25958 have > been on the same host. > > Unfortunately my osstest db-fu isn't really up to datamining the history > of this test case on various machines. Ian J is away for a few days, > perhaps he can take a look at this aspect when he gets back? Yes, I think we should wait for him to take a look before becoming too worried (and I think we're seeing this test routinely fail on -unstable too). Jan