Re: [PATCH 6/6] gitlab-ci.d/buildtest: Disintegrate the build-coroutine-sigaltstack job

[Peter Maydell]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 15:44, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/02/2023 13.08, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 03.02.2023 um 12:23 hat Thomas Huth geschrieben:
> >> On 30/01/2023 11.58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:44:46AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >>>> We can get rid of the build-coroutine-sigaltstack job by moving
> >>>> the configure flags that should be tested here to other jobs:
> >>>> Move --with-coroutine=sigaltstack to the build-without-defaults job
> >>>> and --enable-trace-backends=ftrace to the cross-s390x-kvm-only job.
> >>>
> >>> The biggest user of coroutines is the block layer. So we probably
> >>> ought to have coroutines aligned with a job that triggers the
> >>> 'make check-block' for iotests.  IIUC,  the without-defaults
> >>> job won't do that. How about, arbitrarily, using either the
> >>> 'check-system-debian' or 'check-system-ubuntu' job. Those distros
> >>> are closely related, so getting sigaltstack vs ucontext coverage
> >>> between them is a good win, and they both trigger the block jobs
> >>> IIUC.
> >>
> >> I gave it a try with the ubuntu job, but this apparently trips up the 
> >> iotests:
> >>
> >>   https://gitlab.com/thuth/qemu/-/jobs/3705965062#L212
> >>
> >> Does anybody have a clue what could be going wrong here?
> >
> > I'm not sure how changing the coroutine backend could cause it, but
> > primarily this looks like an assertion failure in migration code.
> >
> > Dave, Juan, any ideas what this assertion checks and why it could be
> > failing?
>
> Ah, I think it's the bug that will be fixed by:
>
>   
> 20230202160640.2300-2-quintela@redhat.com/">https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20230202160640.2300-2-quintela@redhat.com/
>
> The fix hasn't hit the master branch yet (I think), and I had another patch
> in my CI that disables the aarch64 binary in that runner, so the iotests
> suddenly have been executed with the alpha binary there --> migration fails.
>
> So never mind, it will be fixed as soon as Juan's pull request gets included.

The migration tests have been flaky for a while now,
including setups where host and guest page sizes are the same.
(For instance, my x86 macos box pretty reliably sees failures
when the machine is under load.)

-- PMM