Re: [Valgrind-developers] ppc64le results

[Carl L. <ce...@us...>]

Aaron, Mark:

On Wed, 2023-08-30 at 15:48 -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look at the issue.  I tested the patch an a variety
> of machines and get mixed results.  Here is what I am seeing before the
> commit to add the lazy loading, with the current Valgrind mainline
> (includes the lazy commit) and with the patch to fix the lazy load on
> Power:
> 
> machine         pre-lazy-load           current mainline        with ppc debuginfo fix
> Power 8 LE      707 tests,              708 tests,              708 tests
>                 4 stderr failures,      280 stderr failures,    247 stderr failures, 
>                 0 stdout failures,      54 stdout failures,     54 stdout failures,
>                 13 stderrB failures,    16 stderrB failures,    16 stderrB failures,
>                 0 stdoutB failures,     11 stdoutB failures,    12 stdoutB failures
>                 9 post failures         13 post failures        9 post failures
> 
> Power 8 BE      742 tests,              743 tests,              743 tests,      
>                 2 stderr failures,      671 stderr failures,    671 stderr failures,
>                 0 stdout failures,      152 stdout failures,    152 stdout failures,
>                 0 stderrB failures,     14 stderrB failures,    14 stderrB failures,
>                 2 stdoutB failures,     20 stdoutB failures,    20 stdoutB failures,
>                 9 post failures         43 post failures        43 post failures
> 
> Power 9 LE      711 tests,              712 tests,              712 tests,
>                 4 stderr failures,      280 stderr failures,    247 stderr failures,
>                 0 stdout failures,      54 stdout failures,     54 stdout failures,
>                 13 stderrB failures,    16 stderrB failures,    16 stderrB failures,
>                 0 stdoutB failures,     12 stdoutB failures,    12 stdoutB failures
>                 9 post failures         13 post failures        9 post failures
> 
> Power 10 LE     719 tests               720 tests,              720 tests,
>                 2 stderr failures,      42 stderr failures,     2 stderr failures,
>                 0 stdout failures,      0 stdout failures,      0 stdout failures,
>                 2 stderrB failures,     2 stderrB failures,     2 stderrB failures,
>                 10 stdoutB failures,    10 stdoutB failures,    10 stdoutB failures,
>                 0 post failures         3 post failures         0 post failures

I was thinking about what else could cause the differences in the test
results.  I was wondering if the OS distribution might be an issue. 
So, I tried some different OS distributions on the same hardware.

First here is the OS distribution for the above testing.

The Power 8 BE system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server 7.9 (Maipo)
The Power 8 LE system is Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS (Focal Fossa)

The Power 9 LE system is Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS (Focal Fossa)

The Power 10 LE system  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 (Plow)


I did some additional testing on Power 9 LE and Power 10 LE with
different OS distributions with the PPC fix patch applied.

Power 9 LE  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.7 (Ootpa)
== 714 tests, 4 stderr failures, 0 stdout failures, 0 stderrB failures,
0 stdoutB failures, 9 post failures ==

Power 10 LE Ubuntu 22.04.2 LTS 
== 721 tests, 303 stderr failures, 62 stdout failures, 11 stderrB
failures, 14 stdoutB failures, 0 post failures ==

So, it seems that RHAT works well on Power 9 and Power 10.  Ubuntu
doesn't work well on Power 10, Power 9 or Power 8.  There seems to be
an OS issue, not a timing issue that is causing the differences on the
various platforms that I tested.   

                    Carl