Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/56] 4.4.98-stable review

[Naresh Kamboju]

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 Linaroâs test farm. One regression detected on x86. Weâre doing some re-runs to see if itâs a solid failure or intermittent. It is however a testcase which hasnât failed in the past.  Also as per usual the HiKey results are reported separate because the platform support isnât 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