Re: Please add new Android branches
Todd Kjos <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.kernelci |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHRSSEwYk1oGmJEn5xvB91GKSmaJ_ku5D7hvbS00Jb9-piUbOQ@mail.gmail.com> |
Guillaume, any ETA on when we can ramp up the Android tests as discussed on this thread? On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 1:42 PM Todd Kjos <[email protected]> wrote: > > Guillaume, > > I guess we didn't get to a complete plan... From above, can we enable these: > > 1) compilers: gcc-10, clang-17 > 2) archs: arm, arm64, i386, x80_64, riscv > 3) same configs as current android tests > 4) plus configs used by corresponding stable kernel > (https://linux.kernelci.org/job/stable) not included in #3 > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 8:17 AM Todd Kjos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 1:22 AM Guillaume Tucker > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 20/09/2023 00:54, Todd Kjos wrote: > > > > Guillaume, > > > > > > > > How about this for android trees: > > > > > > > > 1) same compilers as current config (gcc-10, clang-14) > > > > 2) archs: arm, arm64, i386, x80_64, riscv > > > > 3) same configs as current android tests > > > > 4) plus configs used by corresponding stable kernel > > > > (https://linux.kernelci.org/job/stable) not included in #3 > > > > > > OK thanks, I think we can set this up easily. We'll get back to > > > you if there's any ambiguity. > > > > > > > We get a nice benefit from sync'ing with the stable kernels since it > > > > allows us to tell which issues originate upstream and which are > > > > introduced by android changes. It's also useful to build each with > > > > both toolchains so we can expose the cases where gcc-10 is OK but > > > > clang-14 has issues (and visa-versa). > > > > > > > > I don't think we need to build all of the combinations if there are > > > > too many builds - we could trim out some of the configs from #4 (you > > > > can recommend which). > > > > > > OK, we can look at past results or optimise incrementally over > > > the weeks to streamline the overall build coverage. > > > > > > > We'd also like to start in an all-green state. So let's trim out the > > > > error cases that aren't caused by android kernel code. I think there > > > > are some 32-bit cases that fail with the clang-14 tools and some other > > > > cases that fail in stable. > > > > > > > > Could we start with all of the builds for #1 - #4 and then tune it up > > > > after a few runs to get rid of long-failing cases and/or to just > > > > reduce the load on the build service? > > > > > > I believe this part of the discussion is still unresolved with > > > Nick, and maybe it would make more sense to address this when the > > > builds get moved to the new API where we'll have more flexibility > > > and more accurate log parsing etc. > > > > > > Another aspect that wasn't too clear in the discussions, should > > > it be clang-14 or a more recent version? Right now, mainline > > > builds already include clang-11 (oldest supported one) and > > > clang-16 and linux-next builds use clang-17. So there is > > > upstream build coverage for them, and if clang-14 is the standard > > > version for Android kernels then I guess it would make sense to > > > stick to it - but that's up to you. Doing both clang-14 and > > > clang-17 for Android builds would seem overkill to me though. > > > > I'd be fine with tracking the latest stable clang version (clang-17 > > now) and dropping clang-14 so we can help the clang team find > > regressions. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Guillaume > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:50 PM Todd Kjos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> +Viktor Martensson +Betty Zhou > > > >> > > > >> Guillaume, > > > >> > > > >> I think that's a great idea. I'll get back to you with the set of > > > >> configs, arch, compilers we'd like to have coverage for. > > > >> > > > >> -Todd > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:46 AM Guillaume Tucker > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi Todd, > > > >>> > > > >>> On 05/09/2023 19:18, Todd Kjos wrote: > > > >>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 8:56 AM Todd Kjos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 4:57 AM Guillaume Tucker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hi Todd, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On 11/07/2023 00:41, Todd Kjos wrote: > > > >>>>>>> Please add the following new Android branches to kernelci testing. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> repo: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common > > > >>>>>>> branches: > > > >>>>>>> - android15-6.1 > > > >>>>>>> - android14-6.1-lts > > > >>>>>>> - android14-5.15-lts > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I've created this PR accordingly: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-core/pull/2002 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Please note that we're now operating with reduced build coverage > > > >>>>>> due to some temporary limitations with our Azure subscription. I > > > >>>>>> know the Android kernel builds should be covered by the GCP > > > >>>>>> clusters but right now the system is designed to distribute > > > >>>>>> kernel builds randomly across all clusters so we can't easily tie > > > >>>>>> Android builds to the Android clusters. Hopefully we'll find a > > > >>>>>> solution to go back to normal coverage within a week or two. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Hi Guillaume, Any ETA for when the full set of builds is restored? We still have greatly reduced build coverage and it's been a month. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Ping. We are getting a lot less value out of kernelci with the greatly > > > >>>> reduced set of builds for the Android kernels. When will the full > > > >>>> build coverage be resumed? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> If it needs to stay reduced, can we decide precisely which builds are > > > >>>> done for Android kernels? > > > >>> > > > >>> Sorry for the slow reply. > > > >>> > > > >>> I think it's fine now to re-enable the Android builds and maybe > > > >>> we should also take this opportunity to confirm which ones are > > > >>> the most relevant to you guys. As part of the process of > > > >>> adjusting the build coverage, I also fixed the GKI builds which I > > > >>> thought were the main ones. Even if there is enough build > > > >>> capacity to build "everything", keeping it streamlined to what is > > > >>> really useful makes the overall system more effective. > > > >>> > > > >>> Are there any particular combinations of arch, config, compilers > > > >>> you care about more than others? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> Guillaume > > > >>> > > >