On 15 November 2017 at 15:44, Milosz Wasilewski <milosz.wasilewski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 15 November 2017 at 08:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:31:18PM -0600, Tom Gall wrote: >>> >>> >>> > On Nov 13, 2017, at 6:55 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > >>> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.4.98 release. >>> > There are 56 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response >>> > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please >>> > let me know. >>> > >>> > Responses should be made by Wed Nov 15 12:55:32 UTC 2017. >>> > Anything received after that time might be too late. >>> > >>> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: >>> > kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.4.98-rc1.gz >>> > or in the git tree and branch at: >>> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.4.y >>> > and the diffstat can be found below. >>> > >>> > thanks, >>> > >>> > greg k-h >>> > >>> >>> Results from Linaro’s test farm. One regression detected on x86. We’re doing some re-runs to see if it’s a solid failure or intermittent. It is however a testcase which hasn’t failed in the past. Also as per usual the HiKey results are reported separate because the platform support isn’t in tree. >> >> I thought I gave you enough \n in the past, did you use all of them up? :( >> >> Anyway, what is the new x86 failure? >> >> Is it this: >> >>> * ltp-syscalls-tests - skip: 164, fail: 4, pass: 957 > > It's > readahead02 0 TINFO : creating test file of size: 67108864 > readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) > readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) > readahead02 0 TINFO : max ra estimate: 262144 > readahead02 0 TINFO : readahead calls made: 256 > readahead02 1 TPASS : offset is still at 0 as expected > readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) took: 951656 usec > readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) took: 921704 usec > readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) read: 67108864 bytes > readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) read: 51257344 bytes > readahead02 2 TPASS : readahead saved some I/O > readahead02 0 TINFO : cache can hold at least: 86180 kB > readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) used cache: 65308 kB > readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) used cache: 15332 kB > readahead02 0 TWARN : readahead02.c:351: using less cache than expected > > Source of the test: > https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/20170929/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c#L351 > > It's the first time this test failed since we started running it. I'll > ask Naresh to look into it. Please ignore this LTP readahead02 failure. Re-tested and it got pass. - cd /opt/ltp/testcases/bin/ - export TMPDIR=/home - ./readahead02 readahead02 0 TINFO : creating test file of size: 67108864 readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) readahead02 0 TINFO : readahead calls made: 16384 readahead02 1 TPASS : offset is still at 0 as expected readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) took: 973355 usec readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) took: 281199 usec readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) read: 67108864 bytes readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) read: 0 bytes readahead02 2 TPASS : readahead saved some I/O readahead02 0 TINFO : cache can hold at least: 364856 kB readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(0) used cache: 65252 kB readahead02 0 TINFO : read_testfile(1) used cache: 65368 kB readahead02 3 TPASS : using cache as expected > >> >> If so, any pointers to the specific log messages, and which tests are >> failing? Digging through the web site isn't the easiest... >> >> And kselftests should have gotten less failures this time around, given >> that some of them were patched in this -rc, why didn't that number go >> down? > > Do you mean the tests were patched or the kernel code that was > exercised? If it's the former, it won't have effect as we're using the > kselftests sources from 4.13 > > milosz - Naresh