Re: [PATCH 4.4 00/56] 4.4.98-stable review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 05:45:41PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On 15 November 2017 at 15:44, Milosz Wasilewski
> <milosz.wasilewski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 15 November 2017 at 08:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:31:18PM -0600, Tom Gall wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > On Nov 13, 2017, at 6:55 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.4.98 release.
> >>> > There are 56 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> >>> > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> >>> > let me know.
> >>> >
> >>> > Responses should be made by Wed Nov 15 12:55:32 UTC 2017.
> >>> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >>> >
> >>> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> >>> >     kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.4.98-rc1.gz
> >>> > or in the git tree and branch at:
> >>> >  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.4.y
> >>> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >>> >
> >>> > thanks,
> >>> >
> >>> > greg k-h
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Results from Linaro’s test farm. One regression detected on x86. We’re doing some re-runs to see if it’s a solid failure or intermittent. It is however a testcase which hasn’t failed in the past.  Also as per usual the HiKey results are reported separate because the platform support isn’t in tree.
> >>
> >> I thought I gave you enough \n in the past, did you use all of them up?  :(
> >>
> >> Anyway, what is the new x86 failure?
> >>
> >> Is it this:
> >>
> >>> * ltp-syscalls-tests - skip: 164, fail: 4, pass: 957
> >
> > It's
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  creating test file of size: 67108864
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(0)
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(1)
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  max ra estimate: 262144
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  readahead calls made: 256
> > readahead02    1  TPASS  :  offset is still at 0 as expected
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(0) took: 951656 usec
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(1) took: 921704 usec
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(0) read: 67108864 bytes
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(1) read: 51257344 bytes
> > readahead02    2  TPASS  :  readahead saved some I/O
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  cache can hold at least: 86180 kB
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(0) used cache: 65308 kB
> > readahead02    0  TINFO  :  read_testfile(1) used cache: 15332 kB
> > readahead02    0  TWARN  :  readahead02.c:351: using less cache than expected
> >
> > Source of the test:
> > https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/20170929/testcases/kernel/syscalls/readahead/readahead02.c#L351
> >
> > It's the first time this test failed since we started running it. I'll
> > ask Naresh to look into it.
> 
> 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... :(

And for x86, you can just run it on your desktop as a sanity check, why
not do that at the least?

thanks,

greg k-h