xm-test failures?

xm-test failures?

[Anthony Liguori]

There seems to be a large number of xm-test failures in current tip.  Is 
anyone else seeing this (~15 FAILs).  I'm attempting to figure out what 
changeset broke things.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

RE: xm-test failures?

[Yu, Ping Y]

>From our test in VMX, it is fine in latest change set 9238.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Liguori
>Sent: 2006年3月15日 7:06
>To: xen-devel
>Subject: [Xen-devel] xm-test failures?
>
>There seems to be a large number of xm-test failures in current tip.  Is
>anyone else seeing this (~15 FAILs).  I'm attempting to figure out what
>changeset broke things.
>
>Regards,
>
>Anthony Liguori
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-devel mailing list
>Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

RE: xm-test failures?

[Daniel Stekloff]

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 16:23 +0800, Yu, Ping Y wrote:
> >From our test in VMX, it is fine in latest change set 9238.


Anthony was referring to non-HVM testing, which is seeing failures with
block-attach and migrate tests. These tests are SKIP'd on HVM because it
needs infrastructure for block-attach that isn't there yet and migrate
won't yet work with HVM.

You are right, HVM passes the tests well it does run. Yesterday on
cs9236, I ran with only 3 XFAILS - the network ping tests that are known
problems - as the only errors.

So, it's time to add more tests and support for HVM in xm-test. Any help
is appreciated.

Thanks,

Dan




> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> >[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Liguori
> >Sent: 2006年3月15日 7:06
> >To: xen-devel
> >Subject: [Xen-devel] xm-test failures?
> >
> >There seems to be a large number of xm-test failures in current tip.  Is
> >anyone else seeing this (~15 FAILs).  I'm attempting to figure out what
> >changeset broke things.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Anthony Liguori
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Xen-devel mailing list
> >Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: xm-test failures?

[Paul Larson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 349 bytes --]

On Tuesday 14 March 2006 17:05, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> There seems to be a large number of xm-test failures in current tip.  Is
> anyone else seeing this (~15 FAILs).  I'm attempting to figure out what
> changeset broke things.
Actually I'm seeing even worse, I have a report of 36 Fails here, and am 
trying to investigate.

-Paul Larson

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: xm-test failures?

[Paul Larson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 897 bytes --]

The numbers I was seeing before were someone untrusted, so I ran it again in a 
more controlled environment.  Changeset is 9238:c445d4a0dd76

Xm-test execution summary:
  PASS:  109
  FAIL:  7
  XPASS: 0
  XFAIL: 3


Details:

 FAIL: 09_block_attach_and_dettach_device_check_data_pos 
	 Failed to attach block device /proc/partitions does not show that!

 FAIL: 02_block-list_attachbd_pos 
	 Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainU

 FAIL: 03_block-list_anotherbd_pos 
	 Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainU

XFAIL: 02_network_local_ping_pos 
	 ping loopback failed for size 65507. ping eth0 failed for size 65507.

XFAIL: 05_network_dom0_ping_pos 
	 Ping to dom0 failed for size 65507.

XFAIL: 11_network_domU_ping_pos 
	 Ping failed for size 65507.

 FAIL: 02_vtpm-cat_pcrs 
	 virtual TPM manager must be started to run this test

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: xm-test failures?

[Anthony Liguori]

Paul Larson wrote:
> The numbers I was seeing before were someone untrusted, so I ran it again in a 
> more controlled environment.  Changeset is 9238:c445d4a0dd76
>   
Have you ran it a few times?  I was seeing vary number of failures each 
time I ran it.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori
> Xm-test execution summary:
>   PASS:  109
>   FAIL:  7
>   XPASS: 0
>   XFAIL: 3
>
>
> Details:
>
>  FAIL: 09_block_attach_and_dettach_device_check_data_pos 
> 	 Failed to attach block device /proc/partitions does not show that!
>
>  FAIL: 02_block-list_attachbd_pos 
> 	 Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainU
>
>  FAIL: 03_block-list_anotherbd_pos 
> 	 Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainU
>
> XFAIL: 02_network_local_ping_pos 
> 	 ping loopback failed for size 65507. ping eth0 failed for size 65507.
>
> XFAIL: 05_network_dom0_ping_pos 
> 	 Ping to dom0 failed for size 65507.
>
> XFAIL: 11_network_domU_ping_pos 
> 	 Ping failed for size 65507.
>
>  FAIL: 02_vtpm-cat_pcrs 
> 	 virtual TPM manager must be started to run this test
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>   

Re: xm-test failures?

[Ewan Mellor]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 12:31:51PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:

> Paul Larson wrote:
> >The numbers I was seeing before were someone untrusted, so I ran it again 
> >in a more controlled environment.  Changeset is 9238:c445d4a0dd76
> >  
> Have you ran it a few times?  I was seeing vary number of failures each 
> time I ran it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Anthony Liguori
> >Xm-test execution summary:
> >  PASS:  109
> >  FAIL:  7
> >  XPASS: 0
> >  XFAIL: 3
> >
> >
> >Details:
> >
> > FAIL: 09_block_attach_and_dettach_device_check_data_pos 
> >	 Failed to attach block device /proc/partitions does not show that!
> >
> > FAIL: 02_block-list_attachbd_pos 
> >	 Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainU
> >
> > FAIL: 03_block-list_anotherbd_pos 
> >	 Failed to verify that block dev is attached on DomainU

When these three fail together, I usually find that the guest is crashing
(xm-test cannot cat /proc/partitions for that reason).  If you can reproduce
it manually, and get the guest's oops, then that would be very useful.

Ewan.