Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:08:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:08:09 -0400 Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.74]:15248 "EHLO falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:08:02 -0400 From: rwhron@earthlink.net Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:10:42 -0400 To: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: linux test project results on 2.4.11-pre6 and 2.4.10-ac10 Message-ID: <20011009001042.A7980@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Summary ------- 2.4.11-pre6 PASS on 10870 and 10874 test cases on Athlon. 2.4.10-ac10 PASS on 25174 and 25175 test cases on Athlon. 2.4.11-pre6 PASS on 11869 and 11870 test cases on Toshiba. 2.4.10-ac10 PASS on 14948 and 14949 test cases on Toshiba. The difference in PASS cases is primarily from the fork07 test which creates processes until max-threads. 2.4.10-ac10 has a higher max-thread value. Tests run twice on each kernel on two machines: Second test started immediately after the first completed. Hardware -------- Athlon 1333 with 512 mb RAM, reiserfs Toshiba Tecra 8000, Pentium II with 192 mb RAM, ext2 ver_linux --------- Gnu C 2.95.3 Gnu make 3.79.1 binutils 2.11.2 util-linux 2.11l mount 2.11l modutils 2.4.10 e2fsprogs 1.25 reiserfsprogs 3.x.0j PPP 2.4.1 Linux C Library 2.2.4 Dynamic linker (ldd) 2.2.4 Procps 2.0.7 Net-tools 1.60 Kbd 1.06 Sh-utils 2.0 Recent PASS cases ------ ---- ----- The 4 tests below failed on 2.4.10-ac4 but now PASS on 2.4.10-ac10 and 2.4.11-pre6. fcntl07 3 FAIL : setreuid to user nobody failed, errno: 1 fcntl07 3 FAIL : child returned bad exit status vhangup01 1 FAIL : setreuid failed vhangup02 1 FAIL : vhangup() failed, errno:1 Hmm. I didn't have a "nobody" account until recently. That explains at least one of those FAILs. ftruncate03 ----------- 2.4.10-ac10 uniquely gives FAIL on this test: ftruncate03 1 FAIL : ftruncate() fails, File descriptor not open for writing, errno=22, expected errno:13 ioctl02 ------- Intermitantly the test suite pauses with this test (2 ioctl02 processes). "ps aux" shows ioctl02 processes in STAT T. ioctl02 -D /dev/tty0 kill -9 on the parent ioctl02 allows test to continue. I've seen this test hang before, approximately 10% of the time. (One hang on Toshiba running 2.4.11-pre6 in this set of runs) growfiles --------- This indicates the Athlon completed all timed growfiles tests. Linux rushmore 2.4.11-pre6 897121 iterations on 41 files in 760 seconds Linux rushmore 2.4.11-pre6 895800 iterations on 41 files in 760 seconds Linux rushmore 2.4.10-ac10 925176 iterations on 41 files in 760 seconds Linux rushmore 2.4.10-ac10 907735 iterations on 41 files in 760 seconds The laptop did not complete all the timed runs: Linux molehill 2.4.11-pre6 503734 iterations on 40 files in 640 seconds Linux molehill 2.4.11-pre6 506124 iterations on 40 files in 640 seconds Linux molehill 2.4.10-ac10 512558 iterations on 30 files in 520 seconds Linux molehill 2.4.10-ac10 513130 iterations on 30 files in 520 seconds growfiles -b -e 1 -i 0 -L 120 -u -g 5000 -T 100 -t 499990 -l -C 10 -c 1000 -S 10 -f Lgf03_ growfiles: 5380 growfiles.c/2085: 9203 tlibio.c/706 write(3, buf, 5000) returned=4464 growfiles: 5380 growfiles.c/1622: 9203 Hit max errors value of 1 growfiles -b -e 1 -u -r 1-49600 -I r -u -i 0 -L 120 Lgfile1 growfiles: 5378 growfiles.c/2085: 16829 tlibio.c/706 write(3, buf, 37537) returned=37123 growfiles: 5378 growfiles.c/1622: 16829 Hit max errors value of 1 Actually, the laptop is short of disk space (331 megs free at the moment). These look like long hand for "out of space". I'll do better next time. Intermitent FAIL cases ---------------------- First run on 2.4.10-ac10 on Toshiba laptop produced: nanosleep02 1 FAIL : Remaining sleep time doesn't match with the expected 4 time nanosleep02 1 FAIL : child process exited abnormally Second run on 2.4.10-ac10 recvmsg01 5 FAIL : invalid recv buffer ; returned -1 (expected 0), errno 14 (expected 88) First run on 2.4.11-pre6 readlink04 1 FAIL : readlink() on slink_file failed, errno=2 : No such file or directory common FAIL cases ------ ---- ----- 2.4.11-pre6 and 2.4.10-ac10 produced FAIL on these tests for both computers: execve06 1 FAIL : Execve fail, execve06, errno = 2 execve06 1 FAIL : Execve fail, execve06, errno = 2 execve06 1 FAIL : Execve fail, execve06, errno = 2 execve06 1 FAIL : Execve fail, execve06, errno = 2 execve06 1 FAIL : Execve fail, execve06, errno = 2 execve06 1 FAIL : Execve fail, execve06, errno = 2 execve06 1 FAIL : Execve fail, execve06, errno = 2 execve06 1 FAIL : Execve fail, execve06, errno = 2 personality02 1 FAIL : call failed - errno = 0 - Success pread02 2 FAIL : pread() returned 0, expected -1, errno:22 recv01 3 FAIL : invalid recv buffer ; returned 0 (expected -1), errno 88 (expected 14) setpgid03 2 FAIL : setpgid FAILED, expect EACCES got 1 shmdt02 1 FAIL : call succeeded unexpectedly waitpid05 6 FAIL : signal error: core dump bit not set for exception number 3 waitpid05 9 FAIL : signal error: core dump bit not set for exception number 4 waitpid05 12 FAIL : signal error: core dump bit not set for exception number 5 waitpid05 15 FAIL : signal error: core dump bit not set for exception number 6 waitpid05 18 FAIL : signal error: core dump bit not set for exception number 8 waitpid05 23 FAIL : signal error: core dump bit not set for exception number 11 Currently BROKen tests in my configuration ----------------------------------------- These tests currently don't run. If you know why, please enlighten me. fcntl05 1 BROK : Unexpected signal 15 received. fcntl05 1 BROK : Unexpected signal 15 received. sched_getscheduler01 1 BROK : Unexpected signal 11 received. sched_getscheduler01 2 BROK : Remaining cases broken sched_getscheduler01 3 BROK : Remaining cases broken sched_setscheduler02 1 BROK : Unexpected signal 11 received. Unique BROK results ------------------- First run of 2.4.10-ac10 on laptop: shmctl01 4 BROK : shmctl succeeded on expected fail First run of 2.4.11-pre6 on laptop: readlink04 1 BROK : Unexpected signal 15 received. shmctl01 4 BROK : shmctl succeeded on expected fail -- Randy Hron - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/