Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-10-04 Thread Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"): > Thanks. The attachment didn't git-am but I managed to make a tree > with it in (but a bogus commit message). > > I have a repro of 165218 test-arm64-arm64-libvirt-raw (that's the last > xen

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-29 Thread Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"): > Thanks. The attachment didn't git-am but I managed to make a tree > with it in (but a bogus commit message). > > I have a repro of 165218 test-arm64-arm64-libvirt-raw (that's the last > xen

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-28 Thread Ian Jackson
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"): > Ian, for your setting up of a one-off flight (as just talked about), > you can find the patch at > https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-09/msg01691.html > (and perhaps in your mailbox).

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-28 Thread Jan Beulich
On 23.09.2021 04:56, Julien Grall wrote: > We could push the patch in the branch we have. However the Linux we use is > not fairly old (I think I did a push last year) and not even the latest > stable. I don't think that's a problem here - this looks to be 5.4.17-ish, which the patch should be

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-23 Thread Jan Beulich
On 23.09.2021 03:10, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote: >>>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL&qu

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-22 Thread Julien Grall
Hi, Sorry for the formatting. On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, 06:10 Stefano Stabellini, wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote: > > >> Jan Beulich writes (&

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-22 Thread Stefano Stabellini
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote: > >> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"): > >>> As per > >>> > >>&

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-22 Thread Jan Beulich
On 22.09.2021 14:29, Ian Jackson wrote: > I'm not sure, though, that I fully understand the design principles > behind non-order-0 allocations, and memory sizing, and so on. Your > earlier mail suggeted there may not be a design principle, and that > anything relying on non-order-0 atomic

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-22 Thread Ian Jackson
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"): > Is the Dom0 kernel used here a distro one or our own build of one of > the upstream trees? In the latter case I'd expect propagation to be > quite a bit faster than in the former case. It's our own b

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-22 Thread Jan Beulich
On 22.09.2021 13:20, Ian Jackson wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"): >> On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote: >>>>> Sep 15 14:44:55.598538 [ 1613.419061]

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-22 Thread Ian Jackson
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"): > On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote: > >>> Sep 15 14:44:55.598538 [ 1613.419061] DMA32: 2788*4kB (UMEC) 890*8kB > >>> (UM

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-22 Thread Jan Beulich
On 22.09.2021 01:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"): >>> As per >>> >>> Sep 15 14:44:55.502598 [ 1613.322585] Mem-Info: >>>

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-21 Thread Stefano Stabellini
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"): > > As per > > > > Sep 15 14:44:55.502598 [ 1613.322585] Mem-Info: > > Sep 15 14:44:55.502643 [ 1613.324918] active_anon:5639 inactive_anon:158

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-20 Thread Jan Beulich
On 20.09.2021 17:44, Ian Jackson wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"): >> As per >> >> Sep 15 14:44:55.502598 [ 1613.322585] Mem-Info: >> Sep 15 14:44:55.502643 [ 1613.324918] active_anon:5639 inactive_anon:1585

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-20 Thread Ian Jackson
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL"): > As per > > Sep 15 14:44:55.502598 [ 1613.322585] Mem-Info: > Sep 15 14:44:55.502643 [ 1613.324918] active_anon:5639 inactive_anon:15857 > isolated_anon:0 > Sep 15 14:44:55.514480 [ 161

Re: [xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-16 Thread Jan Beulich
On 16.09.2021 06:06, osstest service owner wrote: > flight 164996 xen-unstable real [real] > flight 165002 xen-unstable real-retest [real] > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/164996/ > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/165002/ > > Regressions :-( > > Tests which did

[xen-unstable test] 164996: regressions - FAIL

2021-09-15 Thread osstest service owner
flight 164996 xen-unstable real [real] flight 165002 xen-unstable real-retest [real] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/164996/ http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/165002/ Regressions :-( Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not be