| *** prabhakarlad <prabhakarlad!~prabhakar@pc.renesas.eu> has quit IRC | 00:57 | |
| *** prabhakarlad <prabhakarlad!~prabhakar@pc.renesas.eu> has joined #cip | 01:31 | |
| *** uli <uli!~uli@55d4f4b2.access.ecotel.net> has quit IRC | 02:38 | |
| *** prabhakarlad <prabhakarlad!~prabhakar@pc.renesas.eu> has quit IRC | 02:50 | |
| *** uli <uli!~uli@55d4e920.access.ecotel.net> has joined #cip | 02:51 | |
| *** rajm-and <rajm-and!~robert@cpc126990-macc4-2-0-cust43.1-3.cable.virginm.net> has joined #cip | 07:10 | |
| *** rajm-and <rajm-and!~robert@cpc126990-macc4-2-0-cust43.1-3.cable.virginm.net> has quit IRC | 07:35 | |
| *** rajm <rajm!~robert@cpc126990-macc4-2-0-cust43.1-3.cable.virginm.net> has joined #cip | 07:41 | |
| *** toscalix <toscalix!~toscalix@44.red-79-155-67.dynamicip.rima-tde.net> has joined #cip | 09:34 | |
| *** prabhakarlad <prabhakarlad!~prabhakar@pc.renesas.eu> has joined #cip | 10:46 | |
| *** masami <masami!~masami@FLH1Aft167.tky.mesh.ad.jp> has joined #cip | 12:44 | |
| *** jki <jki!~jki@88.215.84.132> has joined #cip | 12:57 | |
| jki | #startmeeting CIP IRC weekly meeting | 13:00 |
|---|---|---|
| brlogger` | Meeting started Thu Nov 25 13:00:27 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is jki. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 13:00 |
| brlogger` | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 13:00 |
| brlogger` | The meeting name has been set to 'cip_irc_weekly_meeting' | 13:00 |
| *** brlogger` changes topic to " (Meeting topic: CIP IRC weekly meeting)" | 13:00 | |
| jki | hi all! | 13:00 |
| patersonc[m] | Afternoon | 13:00 |
| masami | Hi! | 13:01 |
| alicef | hi | 13:01 |
| iwamatsu | hi | 13:02 |
| uli | hi | 13:03 |
| jki | #topic AI review | 13:04 |
| *** brlogger` changes topic to "AI review (Meeting topic: CIP IRC weekly meeting)" | 13:04 | |
| jki | 1. Combine root filesystem with kselftest binary - iwamatsu & alicef | 13:04 |
| alicef | kselftest as been enabled on KernelCI for CIP and the pull request merged | 13:05 |
| alicef | so we should see kselftest checks from now on | 13:06 |
| alicef | main target is 5.10 as under 5.10 are not currently supported by kernelci | 13:06 |
| alicef | the staging kselftest result can be seen here: https://staging.kernelci.org/test/job/kernelci/branch/staging-cip/kernel/staging-cip-20211124.1/ | 13:07 |
| alicef | I'm currently testing preempt_rt checks on the rt branches and sended a pull request for enabling it | 13:08 |
| jki | how to the results compare to what should be expected? | 13:08 |
| alicef | about kselftest ? | 13:08 |
| alicef | what you should expect ? | 13:09 |
| jki | yep, on that page you shared - known failures? | 13:09 |
| alicef | if you see in the available test plans, you should see also kselftest_* entry | 13:10 |
| alicef | and if you click on each one you can see the board/configuration that are working or giving warning | 13:11 |
| jki | so, orange generally mean that a board is not available? | 13:11 |
| alicef | no means that some test got a warning | 13:12 |
| alicef | or failed https://staging.kernelci.org/test/plan/id/619ebd50dc20bbf117176107/ | 13:15 |
| *** pave1 <pave1!~pavel@37-48-10-36.nat.epc.tmcz.cz> has joined #cip | 13:15 | |
| alicef | it means that partial test set couldn't pass | 13:16 |
| jki | ok, so the expected result would be all green, and those others need to be looked at? | 13:16 |
| alicef | yes | 13:16 |
| jki | and how do we compare here to the corresponding LTS version? | 13:16 |
| alicef | on the kernelci mainling list we are also getting the cip report with regression or improvements | 13:17 |
| alicef | is not comparing with LTS version. is comparing with previous cip test | 13:17 |
| alicef | currently is just started to test kselftest on cip kernel | 13:18 |
| alicef | so we don't have a base for understand if we had regression or not | 13:18 |
| jki | ok, understood, thanks | 13:19 |
| alicef | but by testing more we will some more information of what is happening | 13:20 |
| alicef | will have | 13:20 |
| alicef | I don't remeber if currently cip-dev is getting any kernelci mail | 13:21 |
| jki | https://lists.cip-project.org/g/cip-dev/message/6812 - this one e.g.? | 13:21 |
| jki | but none anymore since then | 13:22 |
| alicef | yes | 13:22 |
| alicef | right. I think it need to be fixed | 13:23 |
| pave1 | alicef: yes, cip-dev was getting it at some point. | 13:23 |
| pave1 | alicef: but I don't think we need to get those mails. | 13:23 |
| pave1 | alicef: Without detailed understanding of kernelci they are just noise. | 13:23 |
| alicef | why not ? are not useful information ? | 13:23 |
| pave1 | alicef: I tried to understand them at one point and could not figure out what is wrong. | 13:24 |
| alicef | that are the same mail format that also linux kernel is getting and using | 13:24 |
| pave1 | alicef: It is not just the mail format. Lets take https://lists.cip-project.org/g/cip-dev/message/6812 as an example. | 13:25 |
| pave1 | alicef: Sleep failure on some HP notebook we don't use. Is it just a fluke or real failure? | 13:26 |
| pave1 | alicef: And if it is real, how do we debug it? | 13:26 |
| pave1 | alicef: If you could select some real-looking failure that looks worth fixing, maybe we can work together to fix it? That would teach me how to work with that... | 13:27 |
| alicef | that is still one of the many problem that it could catch | 13:27 |
| alicef | dosen't mean that all problems are useful or fixable but some are | 13:28 |
| iwamatsu | do we need check results on kernelci? I think it is necessary to check the test result on the cip side before kernelci. | 13:28 |
| alicef | and you can get some good information about regression | 13:28 |
| pave1 | alicef: Yes maybe there are some good reports. But at least I'm lost in the kernelci reports and would need help if we tried to address some. | 13:29 |
| alicef | also KernelCI is testing on the same board of cip side | 13:30 |
| alicef | as KernelCI is using lab cip | 13:30 |
| alicef | and that makes cip side work redundant | 13:31 |
| iwamatsu | But kernelci does not use seme kernel config and same rootfs, right? | 13:31 |
| alicef | as is not filtered only to lab cip. you can get also board and notebook results that are not on lab cip | 13:31 |
| alicef | iwamatsu: it does better than cip side | 13:32 |
| patersonc[m] | Is it not easier to work out regressions from the automated KernelCI emails then it is from looking through every single LAVA job as you have to now in the CIP setup? | 13:32 |
| alicef | cip side rootfs is not updated instead kernelci side is using isar-cip-core | 13:32 |
| alicef | and also updating it | 13:32 |
| alicef | and 4.19 kernel config are getted correctly from the cip gitlab configuration repository | 13:33 |
| iwamatsu | alicef: right. we need to update rootfs for testing. | 13:33 |
| pave1 | patersonc: I'm just looking for green marks in gitlab :-). Maybe kernelci would make the job easier, but I just don't know how to use it. | 13:33 |
| alicef | kernelci is already doing it | 13:33 |
| alicef | cip side core image are really old and not much relevant anymore. if you want to move to isar-cip-core | 13:34 |
| alicef | also cip side is "afaik" not using configuration from the cip configuration repository | 13:35 |
| jki | are really all boards we have in our lab also available to kernelci? | 13:35 |
| alicef | but using the configuration from inside the kernel tree | 13:35 |
| alicef | almost all. some are in progress of activation | 13:35 |
| iwamatsu | yes, I thought it probably needed to work with the cip-core team. Until now, it was prepared by the kernel team... | 13:35 |
| alicef | sended a pr for that | 13:35 |
| jki | ok, good | 13:36 |
| patersonc[m] | iwamatsu: This is what Alice is working on | 13:36 |
| alicef | I setted kernelci mostly following as your request | 13:36 |
| jki | so, then then major issue is understanding kernelci, like your results were understood? | 13:36 |
| iwamatsu | patersonc: I see. | 13:37 |
| alicef | mostly is reading them and checking what is possible to fix and discard what you are not interested | 13:38 |
| patersonc[m] | pave1: The green marks just say that a LAVA job got to the end. It won't tell you if there are regressions in the actual tests. | 13:39 |
| patersonc[m] | We'll have to do a proper walk-through of the KernelCI GUI | 13:39 |
| patersonc[m] | The KernelCI project would appreciate any feedback to improve it | 13:39 |
| alicef | patersonc[m]: I think reading mail should be the first priority, as mail are more explicit about what is failing and regression | 13:40 |
| pave1 | alicef: Could we get someone from testing team read the KernelCI reports and tell us if we have something to fix for now? | 13:41 |
| jki | so, we only tested CIP boards, kernelci is now testing other boards as well - could step #1 be filtering out errors from those others for now? | 13:41 |
| iwamatsu | Would we like to add a test result comparison function to the result display of gitlab? | 13:41 |
| alicef | pave1: I think just keep a eye on what is failing and what is possible to fix is enough | 13:43 |
| alicef | I don't know what you can and cannot fix | 13:43 |
| pave1 | alicef: If we have regression between 4.19.X and 4.19.X-cip, we definitely want to fix that. | 13:44 |
| alicef | so after sending commits to 4.19 you should check the mail from cip about 4.19 | 13:44 |
| pave1 | alicef: If we have a regression between 4.19.X and 4.19.X+1, we probably care, too. | 13:44 |
| iwamatsu | pave1: agree. | 13:44 |
| alicef | it will write found regression something about this | 13:44 |
| patersonc[m] | Sure | 13:45 |
| jki | so, what would be the next step? | 13:47 |
| iwamatsu | I can prepare a comparison between 4.19.y and 4.19.y-cip. | 13:47 |
| alicef | it will write something like 144 runs, 1 regressions | 13:47 |
| alicef | a found | 13:48 |
| alicef | [cip-dev] cip/linux-4.19.y-cip sleep: 8 runs, 2 regressions (v4.19.209-cip59) #kernelc | 13:49 |
| jki | iwamatsu: thanks, recorded | 13:49 |
| alicef | [cip-dev] cip/linux-4.19.y-cip baseline-nfs: 19 runs, 3 regressions (v4.19.209-cip59) #kernelci | 13:49 |
| alicef | and from now on you should get more as we are starting to implement more test cases | 13:50 |
| pave1 | alicef: One problem is that it seems to be generating regressions between v4.19.200-cip10 and 4.19.210-cip11, while we'd need report between 4.19.210 and 4.19.210-cip11. | 13:50 |
| jki | i think we need lts->lts+1 AND cip->cip+1 | 13:51 |
| alicef | regression from completely different tree ? | 13:51 |
| iwamatsu | We can do it if we know LAVA job id for each kernel. | 13:52 |
| jki | and then we can do the cross-comparison lts-cip | 13:52 |
| alicef | maybe you can check lts report for 4.19.210 and compare it with 4.19.210-cip11 ? | 13:52 |
| alicef | yes probably that should work | 13:52 |
| jki | ok, so are settled? iwamatsu will do that initial comparison, and then we discuss how to continue? | 13:56 |
| iwamatsu | jki: ok | 13:56 |
| alicef | ok. iwamatsu san feel free to ping me if you need help with the comparison. | 13:57 |
| iwamatsu | alicef: thanks. | 13:57 |
| jki | perfect - thank you all! | 13:57 |
| jki | continue? :) | 13:57 |
| jki | alicef: just don't forget to refresh your PR for isar-cip-core so that we can close that | 13:58 |
| jki | 2. Look into S3 artifact upload issues - patersonc | 13:59 |
| patersonc[m] | WIP | 14:00 |
| jki | good | 14:00 |
| jki | #topic Kernel maintenance updates | 14:00 |
| *** brlogger` changes topic to "Kernel maintenance updates (Meeting topic: CIP IRC weekly meeting)" | 14:00 | |
| pave1 | I did reviews: 5.10.80, 81, 82. | 14:01 |
| uli | reviewing 5.10.80 | 14:01 |
| masami | This week there is 2 new CVEs. I backported patch for CVE-2021-4001 to stable/5.10. | 14:02 |
| masami | iwamatsu: pavel: thank you for your review. | 14:02 |
| iwamatsu | I reviewed 5.10.81 and 5.10.82-rc | 14:03 |
| jki | is the new workflow with its wiki pages already established? | 14:04 |
| iwamatsu | not yet. I will prepare and report in ML. | 14:05 |
| jki | ok, thanks! | 14:05 |
| jki | anything else for this topic? | 14:05 |
| jki | 3 | 14:06 |
| jki | 2 | 14:06 |
| jki | 1 | 14:06 |
| jki | #topic Kernel testing | 14:06 |
| *** brlogger` changes topic to "Kernel testing (Meeting topic: CIP IRC weekly meeting)" | 14:06 | |
| jki | we can likely skip this :) | 14:06 |
| patersonc[m] | yep :P | 14:06 |
| alicef | we already discussed | 14:06 |
| jki | #topic AOB | 14:06 |
| *** brlogger` changes topic to "AOB (Meeting topic: CIP IRC weekly meeting)" | 14:06 | |
| jki | anyone anything? | 14:07 |
| jki | 3 | 14:07 |
| patersonc[m] | Extended TSC tomorrow :) | 14:07 |
| alicef | patersonc[m | 14:07 |
| jki | jep! | 14:07 |
| alicef | what is the situation with pr about patersonc[m | 14:07 |
| alicef | https://github.com/orgs/kernelci/projects/11 | 14:08 |
| alicef | ? | 14:08 |
| patersonc[m] | alicef: PR? | 14:09 |
| alicef | about PR for the kernelci panel for organizing CIP | 14:09 |
| alicef | like tweet or similar | 14:09 |
| jki | PR like public relations, not pull request :) | 14:09 |
| alicef | yes ! sorry | 14:10 |
| jki | Neal would take input on that and tweet that | 14:10 |
| alicef | nice thanks | 14:10 |
| jki | anything else? | 14:10 |
| alicef | i think would be nice to tweet about kernelci/cip effort | 14:10 |
| jki | yes, please make a proposal, alicef! | 14:11 |
| patersonc[m] | yep | 14:12 |
| jki | great | 14:12 |
| jki | then let's close? | 14:13 |
| jki | 3 | 14:13 |
| jki | 2 | 14:13 |
| jki | 1 | 14:13 |
| jki | #endmeeting | 14:13 |
| brlogger` | Meeting ended Thu Nov 25 14:13:20 2021 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 14:13 |
| brlogger` | Minutes: https://irclogs.baserock.org/meetings/cip/2021/11/cip.2021-11-25-13.00.html | 14:13 |
| brlogger` | Minutes (text): https://irclogs.baserock.org/meetings/cip/2021/11/cip.2021-11-25-13.00.txt | 14:13 |
| brlogger` | Log: https://irclogs.baserock.org/meetings/cip/2021/11/cip.2021-11-25-13.00.log.html | 14:13 |
| *** brlogger` changes topic to "Civil Infrastructure Platform Project. Find the logs at https://irclogs.baserock.org/cip/" | 14:13 | |
| pave1 | Thank you... and stay safe. | 14:13 |
| alicef | thanks you | 14:13 |
| jki | thank you all, and "see" you tomorrow! | 14:13 |
| jki | at least some of you | 14:13 |
| uli | bye | 14:13 |
| iwamatsu | thank you | 14:13 |
| jki | bye | 14:13 |
| masami | thank you | 14:13 |
| *** masami <masami!~masami@FLH1Aft167.tky.mesh.ad.jp> has quit IRC | 14:14 | |
| patersonc[m] | Cheers | 14:14 |
| alicef | iwamatsu: going back to the talk about comparing results. i think is not so simple as just getting the lava job diff | 14:14 |
| alicef | kernelci is dividing lava jobs for each tests | 14:15 |
| alicef | probably checking differences from the kernelci emails is more fast | 14:16 |
| alicef | as is more of a resume of all tests | 14:16 |
| iwamatsu | I see. thanks. | 14:17 |
| iwamatsu | I plan to implement it in a CIP test environment first. At the same time, check the data structure of kernelci's. | 14:17 |
| alicef | is divinding results for each test/configuration and board | 14:17 |
| alicef | so you have a massive amount of jobid | 14:17 |
| alicef | the best is just comparing lts-lts+1 kernelci email with cip-cip+1 kernelci email | 14:18 |
| iwamatsu | haha, right, | 14:19 |
| alicef | should be pretty straightforward to do lt | 14:19 |
| alicef | it | 14:19 |
| alicef | as the mail format is same | 14:19 |
| alicef | just lts is using a different configuration from cip | 14:20 |
| alicef | so maybe you could maybe have difference from that | 14:21 |
| alicef | kernelci is using also same configuration as lts | 14:21 |
| pave1 | Sorry, have to go, bye! | 14:22 |
| alicef | for cip | 14:22 |
| *** pave1 <pave1!~pavel@37-48-10-36.nat.epc.tmcz.cz> has quit IRC | 14:22 | |
| alicef | so you can just choose what you want to filter from the email | 14:22 |
| alicef | but we can also filter from kernelci as patersonc is doing currently with some test | 14:23 |
| alicef | if you have any improvement or suggestion i'm glad to ear it | 14:23 |
| patersonc[m] | alicef: What tasks do we have outstanding to add to https://github.com/orgs/kernelci/projects/11/views/1? | 14:24 |
| alicef | define outstanding | 14:24 |
| patersonc[m] | Things we'd like to do but haven't created a ticket for yet | 14:24 |
| alicef | mmm what as been discussed today? | 14:25 |
| alicef | like some way of comparing different tree results? | 14:26 |
| patersonc[m] | Yea maybe. I wonder if that is something KCI would be interested in | 14:26 |
| alicef | i doubt | 14:26 |
| alicef | as could be easily done by comparing email | 14:27 |
| patersonc[m] | Maybe a use case would be to compare the android trees to Linux ones | 14:27 |
| patersonc[m] | Something not discussed - adding support for more CIP specific build configs. At the moment I think you only added defconfigs? | 14:27 |
| alicef | no 4.19 is using cip configuration from gitlab repository | 14:28 |
| alicef | https://github.com/aliceinwire/kernelci-core/blob/2c4ba7d91c491257135dcdcd66a8b0ca74dc5eeb/config/core/build-configs-cip.yaml#L69 | 14:29 |
| alicef | ah right yes we could use more configuration from that cip repo | 14:30 |
| patersonc[m] | That's what I meant. But maybe that would add too much load. Other trees don't seem to test many configs? | 14:30 |
| alicef | :/ | 14:30 |
| patersonc[m] | We should also expand that to 4.4 & 5.10 branches methinks | 14:31 |
| alicef | i don't know. we need so many configurations? | 14:31 |
| alicef | yes | 14:31 |
| patersonc[m] | That's a question for jki pave1 iwamatsu I think | 14:32 |
| alicef | yes | 14:32 |
| *** jki <jki!~jki@88.215.84.132> has quit IRC | 16:00 | |
| *** toscalix <toscalix!~toscalix@44.red-79-155-67.dynamicip.rima-tde.net> has quit IRC | 17:49 | |
| *** prabhakarlad <prabhakarlad!~prabhakar@pc.renesas.eu> has quit IRC | 17:55 | |
| *** prabhakarlad <prabhakarlad!~prabhakar@pc.renesas.eu> has joined #cip | 18:00 | |
| *** rajm <rajm!~robert@cpc126990-macc4-2-0-cust43.1-3.cable.virginm.net> has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!