From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 60076: regressions - FAIL Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:48:53 +0200 Message-ID: <1438242533.16912.34.camel@citrix.com> References: <1438160718.16912.16.camel@citrix.com> <55B8DEBC.7010807@citrix.com> <55B8E011.6070609@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2002123973592499329==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55B8E011.6070609@citrix.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: Julien Grall Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, osstest service owner , Ian Campbell List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============2002123973592499329== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-YpcpSF45anAXzRQSzRms" --=-YpcpSF45anAXzRQSzRms Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 15:15 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > On 29/07/15 15:10, Julien Grall wrote: > > osstest is waiting 40s to get the network ready in the guest. When the > > test pass, the osstest is likely waiting ~20s to pass it. I took the > > time between > >=20 > > guest debian.guest.osstest 5a:36:0e:06:00:20 22 link/ip/tcp: waiting 40= s... > >=20 > > and the first > >=20 > > executing ssh ... root@172.16.146.149 echo guest debian.guest.osstest: = ok > > guest debian.guest.osstest: ok >=20 > > For instance see > > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/59910/test-armhf-armhf= -xl-multivcpu/14.ts-guest-start.log >=20 > FWIW, there is also worth case where the waiting time very close to 40s > (exactly 38s): >=20 > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/59721/test-armhf-armhf-x= l-multivcpu/14.ts-guest-start.log >=20 Exactly my point, together with this: http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/60076/test-armhf-armhf-xl-= multivcpu/arndale-metrocentre---var-log-xen-console-guest-debian.guest.osst= est.log It show two instances of full guest boot, which makes sense as it is the second attempt that "fails". Look at the second one and note: - that it actually boots fine - for some reason, we have: [ 1.196443] udevd[69]: starting version 175 Begin: Loading essential drivers ... done. Begin: Running /scripts/init-premount ... done. Begin: Mounting root file system ... Begin: =20 Running /scripts/local-top ... done. Begin: Running /scripts/local-premount ... done. Begin: Running /scripts/local-premount ... done. [ 20.741128] EXT4-fs (xvda2): mounting ext3 file system using the ext= 4 subsystem [ 20.755723] EXT4-fs (xvda2): mounted filesystem with ordered data mo= de. Opts: (null) ... ... ... ... [ 47.329342] EXT4-fs (xvda2): re-mounted. Opts: (null) [....] Checking root file system...fsck from util-linux 2.20.1 /dev/xvda2: clean, 14689/262144 files, 124109/1048576 blocks ... ... ... ... [ 47.803550] EXT4-fs (xvda2): re-mounted. Opts: errors=3Dremount-ro so it looks like it did take quite a bit to start. Yes, that's in=20 guest time, but stil... In first instance, we have this: [ 1.221159] udevd[69]: starting version 175 Begin: Loading essential drivers ... done. Begin: Running /scripts/init-premount ... done. Begin: Mounting root file system ... Begin: Running /scripts/local-top ... = done. Begin: Running /scripts/local-premount ... done. [ 2.275805] EXT4-fs (xvda2): mounting ext3 file system using the ext4 su= bsystem [ 2.300418] EXT4-fs (xvda2): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. = Opts: (null) ... ... ... ... [ 5.958201] EXT4-fs (xvda2): re-mounted. Opts: (null) [....] Checking root file system...fsck from util-linux 2.20.1 ... ... ... ... [ 6.424911] EXT4-fs (xvda2): re-mounted. Opts: errors=3Dremount-ro Then, no, I don't think I see why the pre-mount activities (I don't even know what those are, although, I don't think it matters) already is ~10x slower, and then the mounting and the fsck check ~6x... The host is certainly overloaded, in terms of number of vcpus vs. number of pcpus, but it's not that all those vcpus should be super busy at this point... Perhaps, the host being practically UP matters (I don't think I've actually ever run Xen on an UP system! :-P) Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-YpcpSF45anAXzRQSzRms Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEABECAAYFAlW51uUACgkQk4XaBE3IOsTynQCePQI4w6b2+Wvx0tMFxzB+dL6y 3ucAoKNpcW4gwrLFE7C7H4HmdtYcBMSk =59eT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-YpcpSF45anAXzRQSzRms-- --===============2002123973592499329== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============2002123973592499329==--