From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932468AbdKOQWs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:22:48 -0500
Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com ([209.85.192.195]:53189 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1757693AbdKOQWl (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:22:41 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYWYl/W+1rFmdVAEElSe4sBUBB7x7BWE9M7kCl4OyDsifEKk3TDwtFgVlMqE7UyDJK+KhDGQw==
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:22:38 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        Milosz Wasilewski <milosz.wasilewski@linaro.org>,
        Tom Gall <tom.gall@linaro.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>, patches@kernelci.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>,
        linux- stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/56] 4.4.98-stable review
Message-ID: <20171115162238.GA29282@roeck-us.net>
References: <20171113125557.613444087@linuxfoundation.org>
 <C753778F-4F4D-42A0-821A-7FEDE28D6985@linaro.org>
 <20171115085933.GA25434@kroah.com>
 <CAJrz+7KVkPMcSo4xHPOv17_7w=gs2ASAMQXYfUJE1x=w-m5Xcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+G9fYu6ALYYvTN=qYPY-54=r=0GUHe3tvUf-Y_bPBPswkWt4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171115151719.GD13671@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171115151719.GD13671@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:17:19PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 05:45:41PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
...
> > 
> > Please ignore this LTP readahead02 failure.
> > Re-tested and it got pass.
> > 
> > - cd /opt/ltp/testcases/bin/
> > - export TMPDIR=/home
> > - ./readahead02
> > 
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  creating test file of size: 67108864
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(0)
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(1)
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  readahead calls made: 16384
> > readahead02    1  TPASS  :  offset is still at 0 as expected
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(0) took: 973355 usec
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(1) took: 281199 usec
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(0) read: 67108864 bytes
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(1) read: 0 bytes
> > readahead02    2  TPASS  :  readahead saved some I/O
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  cache can hold at least: 364856 kB
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(0) used cache: 65252 kB
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(1) used cache: 65368 kB
> > readahead02    3  TPASS  :  using cache as expected
> 
> You all need to really fix up your testing systems... :(
> 
Hard lesson to learn. Tests are not as deterministic as we would like them
to be. For my part, I tend to re-run qemu tests before I report failures
because some failures are sporadic. After a couple of years I know the
usual suspects, which helps. Adding an automatic retry mechanism might
be useful.

Guenter