[Bug 103882] [CI] igt at gem_pwrite_pread@uncached-copy-performance - incomplete - Softdog
bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org
bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org
Fri Nov 24 07:50:01 UTC 2017
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103882
--- Comment #1 from Marta Löfstedt <marta.lofstedt at intel.com> ---
(In reply to Marta Löfstedt from comment #0)
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_3378/shard-glkb4/
> igt at gem_pwrite_pread@uncached-copy-performance.html
>
> dmesg:
> <5>[ 326.317760] owatch: Using watchdog device /dev/watchdog0
> <5>[ 326.317839] owatch: Watchdog /dev/watchdog0 is a software watchdog
> <5>[ 326.319376] owatch: timeout for /dev/watchdog0 set to 370 (requested
> 370)
> ...
> just a bunch of:
> <4>[ 337.243284] hpet1: lost 7160 rtc interrupts
> ...
> <4>[ 663.435903] hpet1: lost 7161 rtc interrupts
> <4>[ 664.322823] hpet1: lost 7161 rtc interrupts
> <4>[ 665.210079] hpet1: lost 7161 rtc interrupts
> then "stray"
>
> run.log: show OWATCH timeout, however there is no pstore...
> [00/75] |
> owatch: TIMEOUT!
> owatch: timeout for /dev/watchdog0 set to 10 (requested 10)
> FATAL: command execution failed
> java.io.EOFException
> ...
> Finished: FAILURE
> Completed CI_IGT_test CI_DRM_3377/shard-glkb4/35 : FAILURE
> CI_IGT_test runtime 274 seconds
> Rebooting shard-glkb4
>
> Also, why is OWATCH kicking in when runtime is only 274 seconds, it was set
> to 370 seconds?
Disregard previous comment I quoted the wrong run.log. The correct one has
runtime 456 seconds, so there is nothing weird going on just a regular OWATCH
kill.
Notifying upstream projects of job completion
Finished: FAILURE
Completed CI_IGT_test CI_DRM_3378/shard-glkb4/7 : FAILURE
CI_IGT_test runtime 456 seconds
Rebooting shard-glkb4
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx-bugs/attachments/20171124/12423680/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the intel-gfx-bugs
mailing list