Hi Sumit, John, Guodong,

Is this something you’re aware of ?

Context here is this is using Sumit’s 4.4 HiKey tree that he picked up which is a blend of current LTS + out of tree HiKey platform support patches that came from you Guodong.

As this popped up, feels like a regression worth looking into as perhaps a suspect patch made it into the fix stream or something isn’t quite right with HiKey and 4.4.

Thoughts?

Best, Tom

On Oct 26, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Dan Rue dan.rue@linaro.org wrote:

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 01:53:33PM +0000, Linaro QA wrote:

...

Summary

kernel: 4.4.94 git repo: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/hikey-linaro git branch: android-hikey-linaro-4.4 git commit: 3113b1f2026ab7fff4ca3eb2bf2ef6983466d35f git describe: v4.4.94-568393-g3113b1f2026a Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/android-hikey-linaro-4.4-oe/build/v4.4.94...

Regressions (compared to build v4.4.92-568342-gf26ce5018d98)

hi6220-hikey - arm64: ltp-syscalls-tests:

• clock_nanosleep02

• epoll_wait02

• futex_wait05

• nanosleep01

• poll02

• test src: git://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp.git

I resubmitted this job to see if it's repeatable and it is. On the second run, 4 out of 5 still failed (clock_nanosleep02 passed the second time). Since all the failures look clock related, are there any suspicious patches in the rc worth investigating?

...

Boards, architectures and test suites:

hi6220-hikey - arm64

• boot - pass: 20
• kselftest - fail: 23, pass: 31
• libhugetlbfs - skip: 1, pass: 90
• ltp-cap_bounds-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-containers-tests - pass: 76
• ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-filecaps-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-fs-tests - pass: 60
• ltp-fs_bind-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests - pass: 19
• ltp-fsx-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-hugetlb-tests - skip: 1, pass: 21
• ltp-io-tests - pass: 3
• ltp-ipc-tests - pass: 9
• ltp-math-tests - pass: 11
• ltp-nptl-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-pty-tests - pass: 4
• ltp-securebits-tests - pass: 4
• ltp-syscalls-tests - fail: 8, skip: 113, pass: 987
• ltp-timers-tests - pass: 13

Documentation - https://collaborate.linaro.org/display/LKFT/Email+Reports

-- Linaro QA (beta) https://qa-reports.linaro.org _______________________________________________ Lts-dev mailing list Lts-dev@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lts-dev

---

Lts-dev mailing list Lts-dev@lists.linaro.org mailto:Lts-dev@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lts-dev https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lts-dev

Oh, and 1 correction:

On Oct 27, 2017 08:31, "Sumit Semwal" sumit.semwal@linaro.org wrote:

Hi Tom,

On Oct 26, 2017 20:36, "Tom Gall" tom.gall@linaro.org wrote:

Hi Sumit, John, Guodong,

Is this something you’re aware of ?

Sorry, I missed looking at this. It is surprising that the same -rc didn't show these regressions?

I'll start looking into these.

Context here is this is using Sumit’s 4.4 HiKey tree that he picked up which is a blend of current LTS + out of tree HiKey platform support patches that came from you Guodong.

This is not our stable+Hikey tree, but the AOSP one. Will need to check the new patches that might have gone in from Android side too.

As this popped up, feels like a regression worth looking into as perhaps a suspect patch made it into the fix stream or something isn’t quite right with HiKey and 4.4.

Thoughts?

Best, Tom

Best, Sumit.

On Oct 26, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Dan Rue dan.rue@linaro.org wrote:

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 01:53:33PM +0000, Linaro QA wrote:

Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------

kernel: 4.4.94 git repo: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/hikey-linaro git branch: android-hikey-linaro-4.4 git commit: 3113b1f2026ab7fff4ca3eb2bf2ef6983466d35f git describe: v4.4.94-568393-g3113b1f2026a Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/android-hikey-linaro-4.4- oe/build/v4.4.94-568393-g3113b1f2026a

Regressions (compared to build v4.4.92-568342-gf26ce5018d98) ------------------------------------------------------------------------

hi6220-hikey - arm64: ltp-syscalls-tests: * clock_nanosleep02 * epoll_wait02 * futex_wait05 * nanosleep01 * poll02

* test src: git://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp.git

I resubmitted this job to see if it's repeatable and it is. On the second run, 4 out of 5 still failed (clock_nanosleep02 passed the second time). Since all the failures look clock related, are there any suspicious patches in the rc worth investigating?

Boards, architectures and test suites: -------------------------------------

hi6220-hikey - arm64 * boot - pass: 20 * kselftest - fail: 23, pass: 31 * libhugetlbfs - skip: 1, pass: 90 * ltp-cap_bounds-tests - pass: 2 * ltp-containers-tests - pass: 76 * ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests - pass: 2 * ltp-filecaps-tests - pass: 2 * ltp-fs-tests - pass: 60 * ltp-fs_bind-tests - pass: 2 * ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests - pass: 19 * ltp-fsx-tests - pass: 2 * ltp-hugetlb-tests - skip: 1, pass: 21 * ltp-io-tests - pass: 3 * ltp-ipc-tests - pass: 9 * ltp-math-tests - pass: 11 * ltp-nptl-tests - pass: 2 * ltp-pty-tests - pass: 4 * ltp-securebits-tests - pass: 4 * ltp-syscalls-tests - fail: 8, skip: 113, pass: 987 * ltp-timers-tests - pass: 13

Documentation - https://collaborate.linaro.org/display/LKFT/Email+Reports

On 27 October 2017 at 11:58, Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote:

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 08:32:33AM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:

...

Oh, and 1 correction:

On Oct 27, 2017 08:31, "Sumit Semwal" sumit.semwal@linaro.org wrote:

Your mail client is completely broken in these mails, it's not showing any differentiation between quoted and new material (at least in plain text mode) rendering them very hard to read.

Sorry about that; sent the replies from my Android phone using gmail client (suggestions welcome for better apps ;) )

Let me re-send, from my gmail web interface on desktop (that should help, I guess?)

...

Hi Tom,

On Oct 26, 2017 20:36, "Tom Gall" tom.gall@linaro.org wrote:

Hi Sumit, John, Guodong,

Is this something you’re aware of ?

Sorry, I missed looking at this. It is surprising that the same -rc didn't show these regressions?

I'll start looking into these.

Context here is this is using Sumit’s 4.4 HiKey tree that he picked up which is a blend of current LTS + out of tree HiKey platform support patches that came from you Guodong.

This is not our stable+Hikey tree, but the AOSP one. Will need to check the new patches that might have gone in from Android side too.

As this popped up, feels like a regression worth looking into as perhaps a suspect patch made it into the fix stream or something isn’t quite right with HiKey and 4.4.

Thoughts?

Best, Tom

Best, Sumit.

On Oct 26, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Dan Rue dan.rue@linaro.org wrote:

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 01:53:33PM +0000, Linaro QA wrote:

Summary

kernel: 4.4.94 git repo: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/hikey-linaro git branch: android-hikey-linaro-4.4 git commit: 3113b1f2026ab7fff4ca3eb2bf2ef6983466d35f git describe: v4.4.94-568393-g3113b1f2026a Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/android-hikey-linaro-4.4- oe/build/v4.4.94-568393-g3113b1f2026a

Regressions (compared to build v4.4.92-568342-gf26ce5018d98)

hi6220-hikey - arm64: ltp-syscalls-tests:

• clock_nanosleep02

• epoll_wait02

• futex_wait05

• nanosleep01

• poll02

• test src: git://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp.git

I resubmitted this job to see if it's repeatable and it is. On the second run, 4 out of 5 still failed (clock_nanosleep02 passed the second time). Since all the failures look clock related, are there any suspicious patches in the rc worth investigating?

Boards, architectures and test suites:

hi6220-hikey - arm64

• boot - pass: 20
• kselftest - fail: 23, pass: 31
• libhugetlbfs - skip: 1, pass: 90
• ltp-cap_bounds-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-containers-tests - pass: 76
• ltp-fcntl-locktests-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-filecaps-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-fs-tests - pass: 60
• ltp-fs_bind-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-fs_perms_simple-tests - pass: 19
• ltp-fsx-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-hugetlb-tests - skip: 1, pass: 21
• ltp-io-tests - pass: 3
• ltp-ipc-tests - pass: 9
• ltp-math-tests - pass: 11
• ltp-nptl-tests - pass: 2
• ltp-pty-tests - pass: 4
• ltp-securebits-tests - pass: 4
• ltp-syscalls-tests - fail: 8, skip: 113, pass: 987
• ltp-timers-tests - pass: 13

Documentation - https://collaborate.linaro.org/display/LKFT/Email+Reports

-- Linaro QA (beta) https://qa-reports.linaro.org _______________________________________________ Lts-dev mailing list Lts-dev@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lts-dev

---

Lts-dev mailing list Lts-dev@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lts-dev

...

---

Kernel-build-reports mailing list Kernel-build-reports@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-build-reports

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:47:15PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:

(re-sending my response, merging 2 responses into 1, per broonie's comment)

On 26 October 2017 at 20:36, Tom Gall tom.gall@linaro.org wrote:

...

Hi Sumit, John, Guodong,

Is this something you’re aware of ?

Sorry, I missed looking at this. It is surprising that the same -rc didn't show these regressions?

It looks to me like we're not yet testing the -rc of this branch (android-hikey-linaro-4.4), or any of the android-hikey-linaro branches. I don't see it in qa-reports, at least.

Dan