Merge ~canonical-kernel-team/+git/rt-hints:krzk/hints into ~canonical-kernel-team/+git/rt-hints:main

Proposed by Krzysztof Kozlowski
Status: Merged
Merge reported by: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Merged at revision: 4996c35f487867325b141699cf69540a84096191
Proposed branch: ~canonical-kernel-team/+git/rt-hints:krzk/hints
Merge into: ~canonical-kernel-team/+git/rt-hints:main
Diff against target: 57 lines (+51/-0)
1 file modified
xenial-linux-oracle.yaml (+51/-0)
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Canonical Kernel Team Pending
Review via email: mp+405903@code.launchpad.net
To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Stefan Bader (smb) wrote :

I am not that confident that I already know all to be able to do good review here. So just as a comment, it would be nice if you would explain (ideally in the commit message as that will survive the longest) why LTP syscals is using that different comment format. Is there more advantage to it beyond readability? Maybe would be something to put into an example hint file which explains the various possibilities.

Revision history for this message
Kleber Sacilotto de Souza (kleber-souza) wrote :

In the case of ubuntu_ltp_syscalls I'm wondering if we should ever hint all versions given that we don't have the test-case granularity to hint the individual failures. The same happens with kernel_selftests.net. We run thousands of ltp_syscalls tests and if any of those start to fail we won't notice because everything is flagged as flaky for all future versions.

Revision history for this message
Krzysztof Kozlowski (krzk) wrote :

> I am not that confident that I already know all to be able to do good review
> here. So just as a comment, it would be nice if you would explain (ideally in
> the commit message as that will survive the longest) why LTP syscals is using
> that different comment format. Is there more advantage to it beyond
> readability? Maybe would be something to put into an example hint file which
> explains the various possibilities.

It's the same format - YAML string. If you mean why it is multi-line - because I mentioned multiple LP issues.

Revision history for this message
Krzysztof Kozlowski (krzk) wrote :

> In the case of ubuntu_ltp_syscalls I'm wondering if we should ever hint all
> versions given that we don't have the test-case granularity to hint the
> individual failures. The same happens with kernel_selftests.net. We run
> thousands of ltp_syscalls tests and if any of those start to fail we won't
> notice because everything is flagged as flaky for all future versions.

For other cases when we hope to fix the issue behind hint, I agree that we could limit it to specific version. However here the issues most likely won't be fixed, so the hinting will be done every release. I am not sure if the hinting person will actually check for new test failures instead of just yank-yank-paste... The proper solution is actually to be able to hint specific failures, e.g. regex on messages? Maybe we should implement it instead in autotest?

Revision history for this message
Po-Hsu Lin (cypressyew) wrote :

> > In the case of ubuntu_ltp_syscalls I'm wondering if we should ever hint all
> > versions given that we don't have the test-case granularity to hint the
> > individual failures. The same happens with kernel_selftests.net. We run
> > thousands of ltp_syscalls tests and if any of those start to fail we won't
> > notice because everything is flagged as flaky for all future versions.
>
For the test granularity, I think I can fix ubuntu_ltp_syscalls like how we test the kvm-unit-test, we build the test first, and read from the test plan file to make it one test per page.

> For other cases when we hope to fix the issue behind hint, I agree that we
> could limit it to specific version. However here the issues most likely won't
> be fixed, so the hinting will be done every release. I am not sure if the
> hinting person will actually check for new test failures instead of just yank-
> yank-paste... The proper solution is actually to be able to hint specific
> failures, e.g. regex on messages? Maybe we should implement it instead in
> autotest?

I have done this regex thing before [1], this is somewhat a predecessor of rt-hinting. It cost some effort to maintain this db.
With more people looking on LTP tests, I think maybe we can focus on fixing failures now, and hint those known issues (or even blacklist it in the ubuntu_ltp_syscalls/testcase_blacklist.py). We will need to come up with a solution for the kselftests/net suite.

[1] https://git.launchpad.net/~cypressyew/+git/regression-testing-reviewer

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
1diff --git a/xenial-linux-oracle.yaml b/xenial-linux-oracle.yaml
2new file mode 100644
3index 0000000..a22a31f
4--- /dev/null
5+++ b/xenial-linux-oracle.yaml
6@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
7+DEFAULTS:
8+ series: xenial
9+ source: linux-oracle
10+ cloud: oracle
11+
12+ubuntu_ltp_syscalls:
13+ - version: 4\.15\.0.*
14+ # TODO: narrow test to fallocate06
15+ test-case: syscalls
16+ state: FLAKY
17+ comment: |
18+ fallocate06
19+ lp:#1866323 - Fix would require backport for btrfs, no plans for backport to Xenial
20+ fanotify09
21+ lp:#1876684 - No plans for backport to Xenial
22+ ptrace10
23+ lp:#1900951 - No plans for fixing on Xenial
24+
25+ubuntu_kvm_unit_tests:
26+ - version: 4\.15\.0.*
27+ test-case: apic
28+ state: FLAKY
29+ comment: 'lp:#1918689 (x2apic id matches cpuid)'
30+ - version: 4\.15\.0.*
31+ test-case: vmx_host_state_area
32+ state: FLAKY
33+ comment: Log notes that this test can fail on older Intel HW
34+ - version: 4\.15\.0.*
35+ test-case: vmx_apic_passthrough_thread
36+ state: FLAKY
37+ comment: 'lp:#1918692 - ubuntu-kvm-unit-test/vmx_apic_passthrough_thread reports assertion failure'
38+ - version: 4\.15\.0.*
39+ test-case: vmx_hlt_with_rvi_test
40+ state: FLAKY
41+ comment: 'lp:#1923284 - vmx_host_state_area / vmx_intr_window_test / vmx_nmi_window_test / vmx_hlt_with_rvi_test fails with timeout on Bionic'
42+ - version: 4\.15\.0.*
43+ test-case: vmx_host_state_area
44+ state: FLAKY
45+ comment: 'lp:#1923284 - vmx_host_state_area / vmx_intr_window_test / vmx_nmi_window_test / vmx_hlt_with_rvi_test fails with timeout on Bionic'
46+ - version: 4\.15\.0.*
47+ test-case: vmx_intr_window_test
48+ state: FLAKY
49+ comment: 'lp:#1923284 - vmx_host_state_area / vmx_intr_window_test / vmx_nmi_window_test / vmx_hlt_with_rvi_test fails with timeout on Bionic'
50+ - version: 4\.15\.0.*
51+ test-case: vmx_nmi_window_test
52+ state: FLAKY
53+ comment: 'lp:#1923284 - vmx_host_state_area / vmx_intr_window_test / vmx_nmi_window_test / vmx_hlt_with_rvi_test fails with timeout on Bionic'
54+ - version: 4\.15\.0.*
55+ test-case: vmx_pending_event_test
56+ state: FLAKY
57+ comment: 'lp:#1866591 - vmx_pending_event_test failed in ubuntu_kvm_unit_tests'

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches

to all changes: