[LTP] LTP Release preparations
Li Wang
liwang@redhat.com
Fri Jan 26 11:40:27 CET 2024
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 7:04 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:
> Hi!
> > Test based on the latest LTP (main-branch + libswap-patchset) results as:
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> > splice07: rhel9.3 + kernel-6.7.0, all-arches
> >
> > 86 splice07.c:62: TINFO: /dev/zero -> ...
> > 87 splice07.c:54: TPASS: splice() on /dev/zero -> file :
> EINVAL (22)
> > 88 splice07.c:54: TPASS: splice() on /dev/zero -> O_PATH file
> : EBADF (9)
> > 89 splice07.c:54: TPASS: splice() on /dev/zero -> directory :
> EBADF (9)
> > 90 splice07.c:54: TPASS: splice() on /dev/zero -> /dev/zero :
> EBADF (9)
> > 91 splice07.c:54: TPASS: splice() on /dev/zero ->
> /proc/self/maps
> > : EBADF (9)
> > 92 splice07.c:54: TPASS: splice() on /dev/zero -> pipe read
> end : EBADF (9)
> > 93 splice07.c:54: TFAIL: splice() on /dev/zero -> pipe write
> end succeeded
>
> We see that one too, on a random set of kernels the splice from zero to
> pipe succeeds. We are trying to investigate.
>
> > 94 splice07.c:54: TPASS: splice() on /dev/zero -> unix socket
> : EINVAL (22)
> > 95 splice07.c:54: TPASS: splice() on /dev/zero -> inet socket
> : EINVAL (22)
> >
> >
> > proc_sched_rt01: rhel-9.3(5.14.0-362.8.1.el9_3), all-arches
> >
> > 10 proc_sched_rt01.c:45: TFAIL: Expect: timeslice_ms > 0 after
> > reset to default
> > 11 proc_sched_rt01.c:51: TPASS: echo 0 >
> > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_period_us : EINVAL (22)
> > 12 proc_sched_rt01.c:53: TFAIL: echo -1 >
> > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_period_us invalid retval 2: SUCCESS (0)
> > 13 proc_sched_rt01.c:59: TPASS: echo -2 >
> > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us : EINVAL (22)
> > 14 proc_sched_rt01.c:72: TFAIL: echo rt_period_us+1 >
> > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us invalid retval 1: SUCCESS (0)
> >
> >
> > sched_rr_get_interval01: rhel-9.3(5.14.0-362.8.1.el9_3), all-arches
> >
> > 9 sched_rr_get_interval01.c:44: TINFO: Testing variant: vDSO
> or
> > syscall with libc spec
> > 10 sched_rr_get_interval01.c:61: TPASS:
> sched_rr_get_interval() passed
> > 11 sched_rr_get_interval01.c:68: TPASS: Time quantum 0s
> 100000000ns
> > 12 sched_rr_get_interval01.c:76: TFAIL:
> > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rr_timeslice_ms != 100 got -1
> > 13 sched_rr_get_interval01.c:44: TINFO: Testing variant:
> syscall
> > with old kernel spec
> > 14 sched_rr_get_interval01.c:61: TPASS:
> sched_rr_get_interval() passed
> > 15 sched_rr_get_interval01.c:68: TPASS: Time quantum 0s
> 100000000ns
> > 16 sched_rr_get_interval01.c:76: TFAIL:
> > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rr_timeslice_ms != 100 got -1
>
> These are most likely missing bacports for the sysctl fixes.
>
You're right, it lacks the two kernel patches you submitted:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c1fc6484e1fb
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=079be8fc6309
>
> > sched_getattr01: rhel-9.3(5.14.0-362.8.1.el9_3), all-arches
> >
> > 7 sched_getattr01 1 TFAIL : sched_getattr01.c:57:
> > sched_setattr() failed: errno=EPERM(1): Operation not permitted
>
> Does this one still fail on a freshly rebooted machine? My guess is that
> if we succeed to set invalid values in the proc_sched_rt01 it may
> confuse the kernel enough to fail this test as well.
>
Thanks, I confirmed that the failure is gone after a fresh reboot.
--
Regards,
Li Wang
More information about the ltp
mailing list