That's caused by a setting in gerrit. I think we just forgot to turn on copyAllScoresOnTrivialRebase for the maintainer label.
//Andreas ________________________________ From: gem5-dev <gem5-dev-boun...@gem5.org> on behalf of Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 7:25:36 PM To: gem5 Developer List Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] nightly regressions I had to rebase my CLs, and that seems to have dropped the maintainer +1. Could you please reapply? Hopefully that's not something we'll have to do for each patch, although I think before I had to rebase for each patch in a series. Do you know if there's some setting that's making that necessary? Gabe On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> wrote: > No, I think you reviewed the only one which doesn't just update the stats. > It would be fine to just mark the other ones as good to go. > > Gabe > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Jason Lowe-Power <ja...@lowepower.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Gabe, >> >> Thanks for going through and updating the stat files for all of the recent >> changes. The people who used to volunteer to do that haven't had time >> lately. >> >> Is there any reason I shouldn't just check off on all of the stats >> changes? >> Is there anything in the changesets to review? >> >> Cheers, >> Jason >> >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:29 AM Steve Reinhardt <ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Here's the changeset Andreas was referring to: >> > >> > http://repo.gem5.org/gem5?cmd=changeset;node=b2720503a978 >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > I can't add reviewers due to a known issue, but here is the stack of >> CLs >> > > which fix the regressions: >> > > >> > > https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/#/c/2641/ >> > > >> > > Gabe >> > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Oh, also, the problem with EIO I think is not because there are EIO >> > > > regressions, it's that the EIO code is being added in with EXTRAS >> and >> > > > breaking the build for certain targets. Excluding it would be fairly >> > > > trivial if I had write permission for the regression script on >> zizzer. >> > > > >> > > > Gabe >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Yeah, there are a lot of problems with the current system. It has >> > three >> > > >> real functions: >> > > >> >> > > >> 1. Making sure things run from end to end without crashing. >> > > >> 2. Checking for inadvertent changes to the stats. >> > > >> 3. Checking for non-determinstic behavior. >> > > >> >> > > >> Unfortunately it takes a really long time to run, doesn't >> distinguish >> > > >> between trivial and non-trivial divergence in behavior, is really >> hard >> > > to >> > > >> merge, doesn't tell you what's not working if something is broken, >> has >> > > >> dependencies with major complications, isn't very useful when >> people >> > > >> diverge from upstream, etc. >> > > >> >> > > >> I think there is definitely a role for that sort of test since >> those >> > are >> > > >> meaningful, but then there are lots and lots of potential testing >> that >> > > >> we're not doing. We should have the few unit tests that already >> exist >> > > all >> > > >> either pass or fail, not just output something, and then make them >> > > >> easy/automatic to run, and we should have more of them. There are >> vast >> > > >> swathes of functionality that really should be tested with unit >> tests >> > > like: >> > > >> >> > > >> 1. The CPU models. >> > > >> 2. All the instructions for all the ISAs. >> > > >> 3. All the Device models. >> > > >> etc. etc. >> > > >> >> > > >> The amount of work it would/will take to cover the gap in testing >> is >> > > >> enormous, but in my opinion that's the technical debt that has to >> be >> > > paid >> > > >> down to straighten things out. >> > > >> >> > > >> Gabe >> > > >> >> > > >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:55 AM, Andreas Sandberg < >> > > >> andreas.sandb...@arm.com> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>> On 01/04/2017 12:27, Gabe Black wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>>> Hi folks. I'm working through the nightly regressions to get them >> > to a >> > > >>>> good >> > > >>>> point for a rebase of our internal branch of gem5, and I've >> noticed >> > a >> > > >>>> few >> > > >>>> things: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> 1. The stats have been changed but not updated a bunch of times. >> > I've >> > > >>>> identified almost all the points this has happened since the >> > > references >> > > >>>> were last updated, and have patches which fix them. Some stat >> > changes >> > > >>>> are a >> > > >>>> little fishy, but I'll at least identify the guilty change(s) so >> > that >> > > >>>> their >> > > >>>> authors can look them over. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> This is really hard to get right with the current system of "push >> to >> > > >>> submit". I would really like to avoid including stat updates in >> > normal >> > > >>> code submissions. It would make it really hard to automatically >> > submit >> > > >>> code (there would be stat conflicts for every single non-trivial >> > > change) >> > > >>> and it'd make cherry-picking really annoying. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Ideally, the CI system should compare the stat output after >> applying >> > a >> > > >>> CL to the previous stat update. That way, you can easily spot the >> > > >>> difference when submitting new code. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> 2. The SPARC FS regression were just plain not running because its >> > > >>>> configuration had been broken. I'll have a patch to fix this. >> > > >>>> 3. The nightly regressions are still checking gem5 out from >> > mercurial. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> We should obviously fix this. However, the repo is kept in sync >> with >> > > the >> > > >>> golden git repo using a cron, so it's not quite as bad as it >> seems. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> 4. The "encumbered" repository has, as far as I can tell, not be >> > > >>>> converted >> > > >>>> from mercurial to git. Probably this isn't a problem because this >> > code >> > > >>>> is >> > > >>>> mostly unchanging and becoming less relevant over time, >> especially >> > > since >> > > >>>> EIO support was removed from the process classes (it was, >> right?). >> > > >>>> 5. The EIO code is also broken, because it tries to call "fatal" >> > with >> > > a >> > > >>>> "(void)" cast in front of it in a ternary operation. Something >> like >> > > >>>> "foo ? >> > > >>>> (void)fatal("a bad thing happened") : (void)fatal("a different >> bad >> > > thing >> > > >>>> happened")". What "fatal" expands to now is apparently not >> > compatible >> > > >>>> with >> > > >>>> this usage. Since I can access the encumbered repository, I can >> > > attempt >> > > >>>> to >> > > >>>> fix this. >> > > >>>> I can (and in at least in some cases will) fix most of these >> issues, >> > > >>>> except >> > > >>>> maybe 4 if we still want encumbered to exist. Please speak up if >> > I've >> > > >>>> misinterpreted something or am missing some important bit of >> > context. >> > > >>>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/gem5-dev@gem5.org/msg19438.html >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> As far as I know, the encumbered/EIO repo has been deprecated. >> There >> > > was >> > > >>> a discussion about deprecating old and broken ISAs a while back >> [1], >> > > >>> that resulted in removing EIO as a way to reduce the test >> overhead. >> > > >>> Steve sent out an email, which no one replied to, asking for EIO >> > users >> > > >>> [2] shortly after the discussion. I think he disabled EIO tests >> after >> > > >>> that. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> We should probably think about what fixing means in this case. I >> have >> > > >>> actively removed stat diffing from tests that I consider to be >> > > >>> functional (e.g., atomic boot, CPU switching, checkpointing). >> > > >>> >> > > >>> I wouldn't mind disabling stat diffing altogether until we have >> > figured >> > > >>> out what to do for performance regressions. I'd prefer to see some >> > more >> > > >>> directed performance tests that target specific components (e.g., >> > using >> > > >>> traces) and specific stats. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> //Andreas >> > > >>> >> > > >>> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/gem5-dev@gem5.org/msg19379.html >> > > >>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments >> are >> > > >>> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the >> intended >> > > >>> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not >> disclose >> > the >> > > >>> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or >> > copy >> > > the >> > > >>> information in any medium. Thank you. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> _______________________________________________ >> > > >>> gem5-dev mailing list >> > > >>> gem5-dev@gem5.org >> > > >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > gem5-dev mailing list >> > > gem5-dev@gem5.org >> > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > gem5-dev mailing list >> > gem5-dev@gem5.org >> > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> gem5-dev mailing list >> gem5-dev@gem5.org >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
