On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 05:45:41PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > 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 You all need to really fix up your testing systems... :( And for x86, you can just run it on your desktop as a sanity check, why not do that at the least? thanks, greg k-h