Re: [Xen-devel] arndales, armhf osstest capacity

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Ian,

On 4/11/19 5:51 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In "[OSSTEST PATCH 00/62] Update to Debian stable (stretch)" I wrote:
>
> >   * I experienced difficulties with the 4 Arndale devboards: high
> >     probability guest start failures.  For now I have marked those
> >     nodes as unsuitable for use with stretch, which will, effectively,
> >     take them out of service - and leave us with a lack of armhf
> >     capacity.  It is possible that this problem is due to the
> >     ifupdown-hotplug issue, now addressed, so I plan to retest.
> I forced pushed this series earlier.  So the arndales are now out of
> service and soon we will have to do something about the problems with
> armhf capacity.
>
> I reran the tests with a version of osstest bodged to let it run on
> hosts not flagged as useable with stretch, and:
>
>    flight 134631 osstest play [commission-arndale]
>    http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/134631/
>
>    Failures :-/ but no regressions.
>
>    Tests which did not succeed,
>    including tests which could not be run:
>     test-armhf-armhf-examine      5 host-install          broken baseline 
> untested
>
> The arndales were unreliable before.  But this one seems odd.  It
> doesn't seem to find its storage.
It looks like to me a network issue. U-boot is trying to continuously 
load the initrd via tftp because got a timeout from, I guess, the USB 
driver in U-boot.
We have been using a pretty old U-boot on the arndale. I am wondering 
whether it would be worth having a try to upgrade u-boot and see if it 
makes more reliable.
My only worry is I am not sure if I can do the upgrade safely remotely. 
I would probably need to find a board in Cambridge for trying out the 
firmware first.
>     test-armhf-armhf-libvirt     12 guest-start             fail baseline 
> untested
>     test-armhf-armhf-xl          12 guest-start             fail baseline 
> untested
>     test-armhf-armhf-xl-multivcpu 12 guest-start            fail baseline 
> untested
>     test-armhf-armhf-xl-credit2  12 guest-start             fail baseline 
> untested
>     test-armhf-armhf-xl-credit1  12 guest-start             fail baseline 
> untested
>     test-armhf-armhf-xl-rtds     12 guest-start             fail baseline 
> untested
>     test-armhf-armhf-xl-arndale  12 guest-start             fail baseline 
> untested
>
> This is the real problem.  Only 2 of the tests actually got further
> than this.  It works fine with the cubietrucks.
The common problem seems to be the network. Some of the logs even have:

[   16.914427] IPv6: eth0: IPv6 duplicate address 
fe80::a446:13ff:fe77:e82f detected!
> Julien and Stefano, would you be able to look at this and advise ?
We haven't really updated the Linux branch used for quite a while. We 
are using a pretty old version of 4.14 (.19 and the current is .111). It 
is possible that a bug was fixed in newer release of 4.14.
> On the plus side, the two ThunderX machines are now in service.
Youhou! Just in time for the 2nd anniversary of their purchase :).

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel