From patchwork Mon Mar 8 06:53:29 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Li Wang X-Patchwork-Id: 1448906 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=lists.linux.it (client-ip=213.254.12.146; helo=picard.linux.it; envelope-from=ltp-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.linux.it; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=UZ0QWhxs; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Dv8FR4DNMz9sRf for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 17:53:45 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB7A3C5570 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:53:40 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: ltp@lists.linux.it Delivered-To: ltp@picard.linux.it Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::5]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91BB53C0E16 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:53:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D7B6005E7 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:53:37 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1615186416; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AzHTCpbDv4iker58WsKlXoFkTEk3DAABxtkJL4loMoU=; b=UZ0QWhxs1LplcY6q6lteLapB8H7WViRH+kv1F08NX2sxxjDgoJM0n+KFcImPH/dlaktSaj RGKvspOglfr/bmZ0D/YQnHGsqxvaJOxrJmGokwbMwFQSb3BRbJPOlRhD/sqdtd+c7gDgjo ypda0nUlgRlakPGep/1JxGTYmZxz09M= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-89-nXwOdaAJOIGKqPNeA-UfPw-1; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 01:53:34 -0500 X-MC-Unique: nXwOdaAJOIGKqPNeA-UfPw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 823A9801814; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 06:53:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from liwang-workstation.nay.redhat.com (unknown [10.66.81.246]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F73B59452; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 06:53:30 +0000 (UTC) From: Li Wang To: ltp@lists.linux.it Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 06:53:29 +0000 Message-Id: <20210308065329.25824-1-liwang@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=liwang@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=7.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=disabled version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on in-5.smtp.seeweb.it Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] clock_gettime04: print more info to help debugging X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Errors-To: ltp-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" We get some sporadically failures like below, but we don't know which loop it comes from. So adding more prints to help locate issue. tst_test.c:1286: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s vdso_helpers.c:76: TINFO: Couldn't find vdso_gettime64() clock_gettime04.c:157: TPASS: CLOCK_REALTIME: Difference between successive readings is reasonable clock_gettime04.c:150: TFAIL: CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE: Difference between successive readings greater than 5 ms (1): 8 clock_gettime04.c:157: TPASS: CLOCK_MONOTONIC: Difference between successive readings is reasonable clock_gettime04.c:150: TFAIL: CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE: Difference between successive readings greater than 5 ms (0): 5 clock_gettime04.c:157: TPASS: CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW: Difference between successive readings is reasonable clock_gettime04.c:157: TPASS: CLOCK_BOOTTIME: Difference between successive readings is reasonable Btw, it occurs on a x86_64 (not virtualized) with kernel 5.11.0. Signed-off-by: Li Wang --- testcases/kernel/syscalls/clock_gettime/clock_gettime04.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clock_gettime/clock_gettime04.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clock_gettime/clock_gettime04.c index 5f8264cc6..4dc9093c7 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clock_gettime/clock_gettime04.c +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clock_gettime/clock_gettime04.c @@ -108,6 +108,9 @@ static void run(unsigned int i) if (tv->clock_gettime == my_gettimeofday && clks[i] != CLOCK_REALTIME) continue; + if (tv->clock_gettime && count == 10000) + tst_res(TINFO, "%s", tv->desc); + ret = tv->clock_gettime(clks[i], tst_ts_get(&ts)); if (ret) { /*