On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 07:00:49PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 9/19/19 6:56 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:14:58PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 05:16:54PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I'm finding make check-acceptance is currently useless for me as a > >>> pre-pull test, because a bunch of the tests are not at all reliable. > >>> There are a bunch which I'm still investigating, but for now I'm > >>> looking at the MIPS Malta SSH tests. > >>> > >>> There seem to be at least two problems here. First, the test includes > >>> a download of a pretty big guest disk image. This can easily exhaust > >>> the 2m30 timeout on its own. > >>> > >> > >> You're correct that successes and failures on those tests depend > >> largely on bandwith. On a shared environment I used for tests > >> the download of those images take roughly 400 seconds, resulting > >> in failures. On my own machine, around 60, and the tests pass. > >> > >> There's a conceptual and conflicting problem in that the environment > >> for tests to run should be prepared beforehand. The conflicting > >> solutions can be: > >> > >> * extensive bootstrapping of the test execution environment, such > >> as the installation of guests from ISOs or installation trees, or > >> the download of "default" images wether the tests will use it or > >> not (this is what Avocado-VT does/requires) > >> > >> * keeping test assets in the tree (Avocado allows this if you have > >> a your_test.py.data/ directory), but it's not practical for large > >> files or files that can't or shouldn't be redistributed > >> > >>> Even without the timeout, it makes the test really slow, even on > >>> repeated runs. Is there some way we can make the image download part > >>> of "building" the tests rather than actually running the testsuite, so > >>> that a) the test themselves go faster and b) we don't include the > >>> download in the test timeout - obviously the download speed is hugely > >>> dependent on factors that aren't really related to what we're testing > >>> here. > >>> > >> > >> On Avocado version 72.0 we attempted to minimize the isse by > >> implementing a "vmimage" command. So, if you expect to use Fedora 30 > >> aarch64 images, you could run before your tests: > >> > >> $ avocado vmimage get --distro fedora --distro-version 30 --arch aarch64 > >> > >> And to list the images on your cache: > >> > >> $ avocado vmimage list > >> > >> Unfortunately, this test doesn't use the vmimage API. Actually that > >> is fine because not all test assets map nicely to the vmimage goal, > >> and should keep using the more generic (and lower level) fetch_asset(). > >> > >> We're now working on various "asset fetcher" improvements that should > >> allow us to check/cache all assets before a test is executed. Also, > >> we're adding a mode in which the "fetch_asset()" API will default to > >> cancel (aka SKIP) a test if the asset could not be downloaded. > >> > >> If you're interested in the card we're using to track that new feature: > >> > >> > >> https://trello.com/c/T3SC1sZs/1521-implement-fetch-assets-command-line-parameter > >> > >> Another possibility that we've prototyped, and we'll be working on > >> further, is to make a specific part of the "test" code execution > >> (really a pre-test phase) to be executed without a timeout and even be > >> tried a number of times before bailing out and skipping the test. > >> > >>> In the meantime, I tried hacking it by just increasing the timeout to > >>> 10m. That got several of the tests working for me, but one still > >>> failed. Specifically 'LinuxSSH.test_mips_malta32eb_kernel3_2_0' still > >>> timed out for me, but now after booting the guest, rather than during > >>> the image download. Looking at the avocado log file I'm seeing a > >>> bunch of soft lockup messages from the guest console, AFAICT. So it > >>> looks like we have a real bug here, which I suspect has been > >>> overlooked precisely because the download problems mean this test > >>> isn't reliable. > >>> > >> > >> I've schedulled a 100 executions of `make check-acceptance` builds, with > >> the linux_ssh_mips_malta.py tests having a 1500 seconds timeout. The > >> very first execution already brought interesting results: > >> > >> ... > >> (15/39) > >> /home/cleber/src/qemu/tests/acceptance/linux_ssh_mips_malta.py:LinuxSSH.test_mips_malta32eb_kernel3_2_0: > >> PASS (198.38 s) > >> (16/39) > >> /home/cleber/src/qemu/tests/acceptance/linux_ssh_mips_malta.py:LinuxSSH.test_mips_malta64el_kernel3_2_0: > >> FAIL: Failure message found in console: Oops (22.83 s) > >> > >> I'll let you know about my full results. This should also serve as a > >> starting point to a discussion about the reliability of other tests, > >> as you mentioned before. > > > > Out of the 100 executions on a ppc64le host, the results that contain > > failures and errors: > > > > 15-/home/cleber/src/qemu/tests/acceptance/linux_ssh_mips_malta.py:LinuxSSH.test_mips_malta32eb_kernel3_2_0 > > - PASS: 92 > > - INTERRUPTED: 4 > > - FAIL: 4 > > 16-/home/cleber/src/qemu/tests/acceptance/linux_ssh_mips_malta.py:LinuxSSH.test_mips_malta64el_kernel3_2_0 > > - PASS: 95 > > - FAIL: 5 > > > > FAIL means that self.fail() was called, which means 'Oops' was found > > in the console. INTERRUPTED here means that the test timeout kicked > > in, and I can back David's statements about soft lockups. > > > > Let me know if anyone wants access to the full logs/results. > > Can you check if the FAIL case are this bug please? > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1833661 >
Yes, the errors do match. I posted an updated there: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1833661/comments/3 Cheers, - Cleber. > Thanks, > > Phil. >
