linaro-validation June 2012

linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org

26 participants
41 discussions

by Alexander Sack

Hi,, i did a run through anon bundlestreams and identified the following that we want to remove: All anon ci- bundlestreams: ======================= /anonymous/ci-asac-linux-linaro-3_0/ not set 36 4 /anonymous/ci-asac-linux-linaro-3_0-build/ not set 4 4 /anonymous/ci-asac-linux-linaro-3_1/ not set 28 4 /anonymous/ci-asac-linux-linaro-3_1-build/ not set 4 4 /anonymous/ci--build/ not set 18 2 /anonymous/ci-build/ not set 15 7 /anonymous/ci-build-build/ not set 4 4 /anonymous/ci-build-with-ext4-3_0/ not set 41 9 /anonymous/ci-build-with-ext4-3_0-build/ not set 12 12 /anonymous/ci-lci-build-changes/ not set 3 3 /anonymous/ci-lci-build-changes-build/ not set 6 6 /anonymous/ci-linux-igloo-kernel-snowball/ not set 1 1 /anonymous/ci-linux-Igloo-Kernel-Snowball/ not set 5 4 /anonymous/ci-linux-igloo-kernel-snowball-build/ not set 1 1 /anonymous/ci-linux-linaro-snowball-cma-test/ not set 3 3 /anonymous/ci-linux-linaro-snowball-cma-test-build/ not set 5 5 /anonymous/ci-linux-maintainers-build/ not set 10 2 /anonymous/ci-linux-maintainers-build-build/ not set 2 2 /anonymous/ci-linux-maintainers-kernel/ not set 5 5 /anonymous/ci-linux-maintainers-kernel-build/ not set 18 18 /anonymous/ci-packaged-linux-linaro-3_0/ not set 62 10 /anonymous/ci-packaged-linux-linaro-3_0-build/ not set 24 24 /anonymous/ci-packaged-linux-linaro-3_1/ not set 190 51 /anonymous/ci-packaged-linux-linaro-3_1-build/ not set 144 144 /anonymous/ci-packaged-linux-linaro-build/ not set 1 1 /anonymous/ci-packaged-linux-linaro-build-build/ not set 1 1 /anonymous/ci-packaged-linux-linaro-lt-3_1/ not set 10 5 /anonymous/ci-packaged-linux-linaro-lt-3_1-build/ not set 30 30 /anonymous/ci-Test-TI-working-tree/ not set 21 19 /anonymous/ci-Test-TI-working-tree-build/ not set 28 28 /anonymous/ci-TI-working-tree/ not set 28 15 /anonymous/ci-TI-working-tree-build/ not set 18 18 /anonymous/ci-triage-build/ not set 3 3 /anonymous/ci-upstream/ not set 119 48 All anon lava-android-: =================== /anonymous/lava-android-leb-panda/ not set 910 770 /anonymous/lava-android-panda/ not set 13 13 /anonymous/lava-android-test/ not set 7 7 More random picks: ================= /anonymous/anonymous/ not set 8 5 /anonymous/bootchart/ not set 8 4 /anonymous/chander-kashyap/ /anonymous/lava-daily/ /anonymous/linux-linaro-tracking/ /anonymous/miscellaneous/ /anonymous/panda01-ltp/ Restored from backup 45 44 /anonymous/panda01-posixtestsuite/ Restored from backup 1 1 /anonymous/panda01-stream/ Restored from backup 1 1 /anonymous/qemu-testing-dumping-ground/ not set 12 7 /anonymous/smem/ smem 2 1 /anonymous/USERNAME/ not set 87 69 If we can just hide them that's also fine I guess. -- Alexander Sack Technical Director, Linaro Platform Teams http://www.linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog

12 years, 8 months

Re: [Linaro-validation] Getting rid of the network dependency in LAVA

by Fathi Boudra

cc LAVA mailing list. On 20 June 2012 06:19, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > Hey Andy, > > During our call with ARM (invite on the way), the fact that LAVA has a > network dependency came up again. Could you expand on the network dependency issue? Filing a bug is even better. > We also have an issue with Connectivity Manager testing. Is there anything that can be done in > 12.07 (SD mux) to get over this?

12 years, 9 months

[PATCH] Have the initial migration depend on the migration that created the Bundle model.

by Michael Hudson-Doyle

--- <usual disclaimer about bit a git newb goes here> Can we move this to LP soonest? Cheers, mwh .../migrations/0001_initial.py | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/android_benchmark_views_app/migrations/0001_initial.py b/android_benchmark_views_app/migrations/0001_initial.py index a9e00ff..59d94bb 100644 --- a/android_benchmark_views_app/migrations/0001_initial.py +++ b/android_benchmark_views_app/migrations/0001_initial.py @@ -6,6 +6,10 @@ from django.db import models class Migration(SchemaMigration): + depends_on = [ + ('dashboard_app', '0001_initial') + ] + def forwards(self, orm): # Adding model 'BenchmarkReport' -- 1.7.9.5

12 years, 9 months

lava-project to delete?

by Andy Doan

I was just going through LAVA projects for 2012.06 release work and noticed this one: https://launchpad.net/lava-arm-fast-model Do we have any need for this?

12 years, 9 months

latest buildout.cfg and lava-manifest broke on clean install

by Andy Doan

FYI - if you try a clean install on the latest lava-manifest's buildout-production.cfg you'll hit a bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/lava-scheduler/+bug/1018728 Doing a "production upgrade" is safe.

12 years, 9 months

timestamp in the future

by Paul Larson

Two jobs: http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/23593/log_file and http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/23602/log_file If you grep for root.tgz and look at the time stamps around it, the first one took a little over 10 minutes. The second one I started maybe an hour ago or so and it's still deploying root.tgz, so I have no idea how long it will wind up taking. Both of these are the same image, same job (except that I added reboots between tests for the second one to see if that would cause any issues, but we are not yet to that point so it shouldn't be affecting anything), and both of them ran on snowball02. So unless I'm missing something, these "timestamp in the future" messages are not only creating insanely large logfiles for us, but are also drastically increasing the amount of time it takes to deploy the root filesystem. Additionally, I saw some things like this in the log: tar: .: time stamp 2012-06-27 16:06:34 is 394095692.518984424 s in the future tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now 0K 0% 3.46M=0.03s Cannot write to `-' (Broken pipe). root@master:~# [rc=2]: <LAVA_DISPATCHER>2012-06-27 09:27:39 PM WARNING: Deploy http://192.168.1.10/images/tmp/tmpVCOkDB/root.tgz failed. 4 retry left. <LAVA_DISPATCHER>2012-06-27 09:27:42 PM INFO: Wait 60 second before retry So... I guess it's also possible the the delays are introducing additional errors and instability. I submitted a simple fix [1] for this which I think might help. If Michael and Andy are in agreement, I'd like to see it in production quickly to see if it will make a big difference. Thanks, Paul Larson [1] https://code.launchpad.net/~pwlars/lava-dispatcher/supress-timestamp-warnin…

12 years, 9 months

About support the sdcard partition on LAVA

by YongQin Liu

Hi, All About the sdcard partition support on lava, As you all have already known, the mmcblk0p8 partition can not be recognized in the master image for iMX and origen boards. Also I have tried with my panda to mount the mmcblk0p8 as the sdcard, but because the 8th partition major number is different with others as following: root@linaro: cat proc/partitions major minor #blocks name 179 0 7830528 mmcblk0 179 1 53248 mmcblk0p1 179 2 991232 mmcblk0p2 179 3 65536 mmcblk0p3 179 4 1 mmcblk0p4 179 5 2097152 mmcblk0p5 179 6 2097152 mmcblk0p6 179 7 2097152 mmcblk0p7 259 0 420864 mmcblk0p8 root@linaro: the 8th partition cannot be used in android too. So at the point now for us the only way is to reduce the partition number of our sdcard. Here are 3 idea I have thought, but I don't which should we use: 1. merge the master boot partition and target boot partition as one partition Problem: the master boot partition will be modified each time the target is deployed. This will increase the risk to destroy the master boot 2. merge the master boot partition and master rootfs partition as one partition Problems: 1)we need to change to use the vfat file system format for rootfs, because the uboot need the vfat format 2)Need to change the master initrd.img and merge the two partitions in our lava-create-master script 3. merge the target boot partition and target rootfs partition as one partition Problems: 1)we need to change to use the vfat file system format for rootfs, because the uboot need the vfat format 2)this is not the default partition layout that target image will use, and will increase the failure risk in other thing. 4. leave the iMX and origen not supported until the sdmux Any other ideas about how to deal with this problem? Thanks, Yongqin Liu

12 years, 9 months

Time spent downloading and caching the tarballs

by Ricardo Salveti

Hey folks, I was checking today what we could do to optimize the job runs at LAVA, and noticed that the time it takes to download and cache the tarball is still the biggest bottleneck we have. Checking job http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/23135, you can see at the top of the serial log that it took almost one hour just to download and cache the tarball. As I believe this could also be related with the connection we have available at the lab, and as we're caching the tarballs already, wouldn't it be possible to use zsync or a similar tool to speed up the download? For the pre-built images we're already generating the zsync meta-data file together with the image itself, so would be nice to check if that would really make any difference from the lab perspective. Thanks, -- Ricardo Salveti de Araujo

12 years, 9 months

Daily updates of staging finally set up

by Michael Hudson-Doyle

Hi all, I have just fiddled with the appropriate crontabs to get staging updated at 00:00 UTC (or possibly 00:00 UK time) to trunk branches of various components. You can see a log of the updates at: http://validation.linaro.org/staging-updates.txt and I've updated the way the deployment report handles components in branches: http://validation.linaro.org/deployment-report.xhtml (although as staging is running the tip versions of all branches now, this isn't really apparent). The way this works is that there is a checkout of trunk of various branches in /srv/lava/branches (please DO NOT edit anything in these brances -- I want them to remain pristine copies of trunk) and symlinks from /srv/lava/instances/staging/code/current/local to each of these components. These symlinks get copied forward to a new version of the code directory if ldt upgrade staging creates one (i.e. if we commit a new lava-manifest revision). If you want to use a custom branch on staging, check it out somewhere on control (not in /srv/lava/instances/staging/code/current/local!) and run (as instance-manager) /srv/lava/instances/staging/bin/lava-develop-local $path_to_your_branch. When you're done testing, please run "/srv/lava/instances/staging/bin/lava-develop-local /srv/lava/branches/$component" to get back to tracking tip. To see changes on staging.validation.linaro.org you'll need to restart the instance. I'll work on automatically copying the production database to staging next week I hope. Cheers, mwh

12 years, 9 months

dispatcher logging missing on staging.l.o

by Andy Doan

Michael, I was testing out my new dispatcher code on staging.l.o and notice we aren't getting any logging when you look at the job details. The $VIRTUAL_EVN/etc/lava-dispatcher/lava-dispatcher.conf looks correct. I also added a temporary "print" statement to spit out the logging level when a job started and it was "20" which is correct. I must be missing something subtle about python logging, but don't know what? -andy

12 years, 9 months

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

linaro-validation June 2012