From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [xen-4.5-testing test] 56898: regressions - FAIL Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 10:03:47 +0100 Message-ID: <1432285427.10746.143.camel@citrix.com> References: <555EF2B9020000780007D08B@mail.emea.novell.com> <1432279155.5748.142.camel@citrix.com> <555EFB64020000780007D0D1@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YvisH-0006kW-58 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 22 May 2015 09:04:13 +0000 In-Reply-To: <555EFB64020000780007D0D1@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: xen-devel , ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 08:48 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 22.05.15 at 09:19, wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 08:11 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 21.05.15 at 21:30, wrote: > >> > flight 56898 xen-4.5-testing real [real] > >> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/56898/ > >> > > >> > Regressions :-( > >> > > >> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, > >> > including tests which could not be run: > >> > test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 16 guest-stop fail REGR. vs. 56728 > >> > >> This is recurring (i.e. presumably real), but none of the few changes > >> under test appear to be related in any way. And going through the > >> logs I can't spot anything suspicious either. Does anyone else have > >> a clue? > > > > For a long time this test was marked "never passed". However I recently > > added osstest support for using the ACPI shutdown method against certain > > guests when configured to do so and configured win7. > > > > However it is starting to look like the ACPI shutdown method is > > unreliable, since this now seems to be failing intermittently. I haven't > > had a chance to analyse it yet, but it seems like it might also be > > specific to Windows 7. > > > > In this case, as with the other one I looked at earlier in the week, the > > guest vnc screenshot shows no sign that it is considering shutting down. > > > >> > test-amd64-amd64-rumpuserxen-amd64 15 > >> > rumpuserxen-demo-xenstorels/xenstorels.repeat fail REGR. vs. 56728 > >> > >> I suppose this (also recurring, and also seemingly unrelated to > >> any of the commits under test) > > > > Correct, this is a long standing heisenbug. I recently increased the > > number of iterations used in this test to (hopefully) reduce the > > incidences of false passes. > > > > I would force push any flight which failed only this case. > > Together with your explanation on the other failure this then perhaps > is enough reason to actually do a force push here (which iiuc will at > once make both of them allowable failures going forward). Until the next spurious pass, which looks to be about 1 in 10. But yes, I think force pushing the win7 shutdown issue while we discuss in the other thread would be reasonable, pending a decision there whether to whitelist this particular failure or not when Ian gets back. Ian.