* Re: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/578] 5.10.80-rc2 review
@ 2021-11-17 14:37 Tim Lewis
2021-11-18 10:40 ` Naresh Kamboju
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tim Lewis @ 2021-11-17 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Naresh Kamboju; +Cc: open list
> No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386.
I got
proc-uptime-001: proc-uptime-001.c:39: main: Assertion `i1 >= i0' failed.
I don't see proc-uptime-001 on
https://github.com/Linaro/test-definitions/blob/master/automated/linux/kselftest/skipfile-lkft.yaml
my proc-uptime-001 history
5.10.80-rc2-dirty:not ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001 # exit=134
5.10.80-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.79-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.78-rc2-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.77-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.76-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.75-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.74-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.73-rc3-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.73-rc2-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.72-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.71-rc2-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.71-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.70-rc2-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.70-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.69-rc2-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.69-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.68-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.67-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.65-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.63-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.62-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.60-rc2-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.59-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.58-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.57-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.56-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.54-rc2-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.53-rc2-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.52-rc2-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
5.10.51-rc1-dirty:ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/578] 5.10.80-rc2 review
2021-11-17 14:37 Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/578] 5.10.80-rc2 review Tim Lewis
@ 2021-11-18 10:40 ` Naresh Kamboju
2021-11-18 15:37 ` Tim Lewis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Naresh Kamboju @ 2021-11-18 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tim Lewis
Cc: open list, lkft-triage, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK,
Anders Roxell
+ Kernel Selftest
+ Anders
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your email.
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 20:07, Tim Lewis <elatllat@gmail.com> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/578] 5.10.80-rc2 review
2021-11-18 10:40 ` Naresh Kamboju
@ 2021-11-18 15:37 ` Tim Lewis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tim Lewis @ 2021-11-18 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Naresh Kamboju
Cc: open list, lkft-triage, open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK,
Anders Roxell
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 5:41 AM Naresh Kamboju
<naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
...
> I have noticed intermittent failures on slow devices.
...
> When the test runs more than X time (45 sec i guess) the script will
> be killed by the runner script.
In my test environment proc-uptime-001 seems to be passing ~40% (N=10)
of the time,
and taking approximately 0.60 seconds (~11 seconds / 18 tests).
kselftest is not timing individual targets (maybe it should?),
so I don't have a timing history but it used to pass 100% (N=60) of the time.
> We will add this as known intermittent failure.
Thanks, I'll remove it from my tests.
Data for the numbers above:
for X in $(seq 1 10) ; do echo $X && time make TARGETS="proc"
kselftest | grep -P "ok.*proc-uptime-001" ; done
1
ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
real 0m10.605s
user 0m3.427s
sys 0m7.239s
2
not ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001 # exit=134
real 0m10.808s
user 0m3.237s
sys 0m6.614s
3
ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
real 0m10.577s
user 0m3.377s
sys 0m7.269s
4
ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
real 0m12.424s
user 0m3.215s
sys 0m7.402s
5
not ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001 # exit=134
real 0m11.101s
user 0m3.257s
sys 0m6.883s
6
not ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001 # exit=134
real 0m10.797s
user 0m3.199s
sys 0m6.671s
7
not ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001 # exit=134
real 0m12.817s
user 0m3.308s
sys 0m7.177s
8
not ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001 # exit=134
real 0m10.816s
user 0m3.201s
sys 0m6.663s
9
not ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001 # exit=134
real 0m10.832s
user 0m3.145s
sys 0m6.721s
10
ok 10 selftests: proc: proc-uptime-001
real 0m10.664s
user 0m3.337s
sys 0m7.375s
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-11-18 15:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-11-17 14:37 Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/578] 5.10.80-rc2 review Tim Lewis
2021-11-18 10:40 ` Naresh Kamboju
2021-11-18 15:37 ` Tim Lewis
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).