From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF61C433F5 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:41:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C00613D0 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:41:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245710AbhKRKoW (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2021 05:44:22 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48148 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1343545AbhKRKoD (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2021 05:44:03 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 268D4C061570 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 02:41:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id g14so24995460edz.2 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 02:41:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=f/KSiRc7oNYzOW4CK1BZ0cCm2AAq7/+zfddZF7SXbKM=; b=UJxm76ZB0KzfUep9Thp1f2rhYqUhJnJ+BbuZFbMPaQd0qfx9qbM6b6hIpk/UpRzSfr k2zjOv+hUA6WRSFtxuM1fNRHA5A32XxK30KKdxpjntk49fZSmwXkmjRXZm90qlapoCsf qHWMLH1C1lvNqxTOG7rJKXfGoIA0JDYvOK4HGmJ3KRYUwYB9Rw7e6y45NxdtkZKJnyhw OeLJpjZ3blmiaAP0O75pLBYxwNtlWdxJ9UHDikBUrx9v3EnbdYnHANpgQPFqc6j7W2TD sKgEbeik7xjTCGRGyhnJDPFCkHLnFtyOnA6Spxlm5S1qFLeNI2A2Fo5l/Ta2TojyQHt9 qC7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f/KSiRc7oNYzOW4CK1BZ0cCm2AAq7/+zfddZF7SXbKM=; b=eHuEFF2XujLz3cn9sicyUcJ3/AP8pdaeQGdRM0hNUAlAhgbK+EF6HJej1/CGT0+Nr8 L2fkD3Akp6I03TLaG1jXxnZTbh3F+spntjRwveZwVWDy83Kp50JnO4ZFIuX17em5S4B4 DK6+r/P/lrXWGwebfDmR4fUr07aqf3goSJJ5O6wbo2O/u1orZ4hbgQAmy5PEGwBywkEN ZaQZEVO1WFlhFZmblNXVdAwWCJSgEXrRwDnbhFBfvM0D7ise3jJPqYR3/Dh3eX5YpA6Q cadHfnmTeI/aV8eQpLKYmvsAWRxJ3nfNkyGVU/pU9THvBxcDeLqzOsbvE/y0g0eL3wbS datw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531HWnKDi97OO3VE8BJ4KawdMLjbr6nz6K3dPvkLJBoINQB+KgbN tdHO5rNA/Z6TG51XcpP9KT/ttM8iUStbQE1MdkeLe8422nhltg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxYNwCzJKpVqZOSc+cef4RPv+4x9Rs+TqbqBc/rs/Dm99bpBfCvifu2+8PysuQwOudP3oH7O+FDG63pehPRwD0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7f90:: with SMTP id qk16mr32602837ejc.169.1637232061458; Thu, 18 Nov 2021 02:41:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Naresh Kamboju Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 16:10:50 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/578] 5.10.80-rc2 review To: Tim Lewis Cc: open list , lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Anders Roxell Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org + Kernel Selftest + Anders Hi Tim, Thanks for your email. On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 20:07, Tim Lewis wrote: > > > No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386. > > I got > proc-uptime-001: proc-uptime-001.c:39: main: Assertion `i1 >= i0' failed. It is a known intermittent failure due to test running more than expected time and runner script killed it. I have noticed intermittent failures on slow devices. You can see the history of the test case on Linux next here intermittently failing. I do compare between the stable-rc branches, Linux mainline and next. https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-master/build/next-20210924/testrun/5897899/suite/kselftest-proc/test/proc.proc-uptime-001/history/ > I don't see proc-uptime-001 on > https://github.com/Linaro/test-definitions/blob/master/automated/linux/kselftest/skipfile-lkft.yaml We will add this as known intermittent failure. It would be great if we report this to the test author and ask them to review the test case for the reason for long run time on slow devices. > > my proc-uptime-001 history In general when a test fails, Please re-run the test independently for 10 times or more on the same kernel / device before we report it as regression. > 5.10.80-rc2-dirty:not ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001 # exit=134 exit=134 which means Aborted. When the test runs more than X time (45 sec i guess) the script will be killed by the runner script. > 5.10.80-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001 This test log details gives more insight that the test was timeout and Aborted. Test output log: -------------------- # selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001 [ 43.200262] audit: type=1701 audit(1618432600.255:6): auid=4294967295 uid=0 gid=0 ses=4294967295 pid=11758 comm=\"proc-uptime-001\" exe=\"/opt/kselftest_intree/proc/proc-uptime-001\" sig=6 res=1 # proc-uptime-001: proc-uptime-001.c:39: main: Assertion `i1 >= i0' failed. # /usr/bin/tim[ 43.224097] audit: type=1701 audit(1618432600.259:7): auid=4294967295 uid=0 gid=0 ses=4294967295 pid=11756 comm=\"timeout\" exe=\"/usr/bin/timeout.coreutils\" sig=6 res=1 eout: the monitored command dumped core # ./kselftest/runner.sh: line 33: 11756 Aborted /usr/bin/timeout --foreground \"$kselftest_timeout\" \"$1\" not ok 11 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001 # exit=134 However, It is good to find that system running slowly. - Naresh