Hi Vishal, Comments in line:
On 26 Nov 2013, at 14:01, Vishal Bhoj <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > > > > On 26 November 2013 19:10, Dave Pigott <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25 Nov 2013, at 10:26, Dave Pigott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> OK - for the moment, I've off-lined 04. Longer term we need a better >> solution. >> >> I think that the problem is that adb is buggy. It is clearly *supposed* to >> work with multiple devices simultaneously, otherwise why have it running as >> a daemon? >> >> Course of action: >> * We can patch around it by having an "android" device tag, which will be >> guaranteed to only have one instance per LAVA worker node. >> * We should also investigate if there is an adb update that fixes the >> simultaneous connection issue. > > > More on this: > > http://developer.android.com/tools/help/adb.html > > This seems to imply that for any version of android after 4.2.2 (JellyBean) > we should be using 1.0.31. We're using 1.0.29, the default that ships with > Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. The first time 1.0.31 was shipped with Ubuntu was in raring. > Latest adb is available as part of Android SDK and should work on any Ubuntu > version: > http://dl.google.com/android/android-sdk_r22.3-linux.tgz > > Installing adb along with SDK may be tedious with the way we setup > lava-dispatcher. It involves running > > > So perhaps we should look at whether we can get 1.0.31 running on 12.04, and > see if it fixes any of the problems we're seeing. The documentation certainly > suggests that running multiple adb sessions is supported. > > It should work out of the box so we should download the package and install > it. We use salt to control the server configuration, so we'll need to update the salt repo (lava-lab) to support this. > Just a note - we also see issues like this on non fast models devices. > > We have tried fixing this issue previously as well. This bug is difficult to > reproduce and last time we had found out that it was failing due to a memory > corruption. Is it possible to "export ADB_TRACE=all" in the dispatcher setup > so that we get the logs whenever we see this failure. Yeah - good plan. Will add that to the dispatcher. I'll open a bug for it. > > This merge request will at least help us recover from the failure easily > instead of waiting till someone reports it: > https://staging.review.linaro.org/#/c/508/ Will review tomorrow (I'm officially out this afternoon) Dave > > Dave > >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Dave >> >> On 25 Nov 2013, at 09:47, Vishal Bhoj <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The models are currently stable. Here are the jobs for release. Most of it >>> has completed: >>> http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87699 >>> https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87700 >>> https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87701 >>> >>> Submitted one more with partial test from job 87700: >>> http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/88187 >>> >>> Its okay to have multiple models per machine but we need to have only one >>> model running Android per machine which has proven to be stable. If we run >>> Android on more than one model per machine then it results in adb errors. >>> Hence Yongqin requested to take _04 offline. >>> >>> Currently juice is the only project where Android is booted extensively on >>> "rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a" models. It is preferred to have only one such model >>> per H/W instance to have the setup stable for Android. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Vishal >>> >>> >>> On 25 November 2013 15:01, Jakub Pavelek <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> we should have setup with one model per HW instance. (Otherwise our tests >>> will not run reliably). Guys help us getting that up and running again, it >>> is release week. >>> >>> Br, >>> >>> --jakub >>> >>> >>> On 24 November 2013 14:52, Antonio Terceiro <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:54:40AM +0800, Yongqin Liu wrote: >>> > Hi, Antonio >>> > >>> > Thanks for the help. >>> > http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted up >>> > with >>> > the latest build#219. >>> > >>> > But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and >>> > rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, >>> > could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? >>> > since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may cause >>> > the >>> > adb problem. >>> >>> There are fastmodels on the same machine (which may also cause the same >>> problem?) so I doubt if take _04 offline will make any difference. >>> -- >>> Antonio Terceiro >>> Software Engineer - Linaro >>> http://www.linaro.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> linaro-validation mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation >> > >
_______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
