Message-ID: <20131004085357.GA2619@bandura.localhost>
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2013 10:53:57 +0200
From:	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ATTEND] oops.kernel.org prospect

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:25:12PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:52:02PM +0200, Anton Arapov wrote:
>  > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:39:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>  > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:16:43PM +0200, Anton Arapov wrote:
>  > > > > Why not just do that through email?  You'll reach a much wider group of
>  > > > > people than the tiny 80 developers at the conference.
>  > > > 
>  > > > Ouch! Someone to take it as replacement of email - the least I wanted. It will
>  > > > go email-way in either case.
>  > > > 
>  > > > These tiny 80 may give the most valuable feedback on the topic. And often
>  > > > it is the most difficult to get attention of them, especially via email.
>  > > > In case it fits the conference, it could dilute the heavy topics.
>  > > 
>  > > Usyually the best thing to do is to start the discussion on the
>  > > mailing list (and we can do that on ksummit-2013-discuss, but this is
>  > > always why it's sometimes useful to cc lkml on topic proposals, so we
>  > > can jump start the discussion), and see if it's controversial or not.
>  > 
>  > Oh well,... I didn't have a time for this right now, nor project is
>  > not exactly in the state I'm willing to show (mostly webui) 
>  > 
>  > // CC'd: lkml (please don't complain on styles yet, focus on functionality)
> 
> I stumbled across this a week or so ago, and had some thoughts back then,
> but didn't mail them anywhere because I wasn't sure who ran it, and couldn't
> tell how far along it was.
> 
> Quick brain dump
> 
> * Visiting it with chromium gets an annoying warning about the https server
>   identifying as a different server. (does it even need https?)

It was an openshift+chromium issue, it should be resolved as per 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908417


> * There's a lot of tainted kernel traces in there. 99% of kernel developers
>   will never care about these in my experience.  You can adjust this on a per-query
>   basis it seems, but better would be to turn them off globally, and have them
>   available just for people who want to search for 'all' (tainted or untainted) oopses.
> 
>   - That the tainted oopses are counted as 'regular' oopses is skewing the 'top bugs'
>     on the front page.
> 
>   - As well as proprietary, take care of 'out of tree' tainted modules in the same way.

It is possible to filter out tainted reports now. 


> * I clicked through some of the debian oopses, and saw these:
>   https://oops.kernel.org/browse-reports/oops-detail/?id=30497
>   https://oops.kernel.org/browse-reports/oops-detail/?id=30499
>   It would be useful to know if this was the same user. (It seems likely, but
>   there's no way to know for sure). You don't need identifying info other than
>   "These came from the same system" side-stepping any privacy concerns.

Watching oopses from one source is still in to do.

But now you can see "Total count: 14 (from 7 unique sources) " per
oops, for example:
http://oops.kernel.org/oops/warning-at-net-ipv4-tcp_input-c2776-tcp_fastretrans_alert0xc21-0xc60-6/

> * In the Linked modules section, if there's an out-of-tree/proprietary module,
>   we annotate those in oopses with (O), or (P). This seems to be lost in your UI.
>   (Bonus points for making them stand out)

implemented.


> * The traces by default lack a lot of information, forcing clicking of the 'show raw oops'
>   in every case.  Missing useful info (at least): EIP/RIP, other registers.

should be improved now.

> * 'Show raw oops' doesn't. (At least on chromium)
> 
> * This bug last seen: 2013-08-17
>   Also useful here would be something like:
>   Seen on: 3.2-rc2, 3.10-rc10  (You can probably just list earliest/latest rather than
>    every single kernel it's been seen on, unless you want a 'show all' button)

implemented.

> * Instead of summaries like "general protection fault: 4000 [#1] SMP"
>   Decode the EIP/RIP, and call it "general protection fault in i915_gem_do_execbuffer".
>   Not only does it make reading summaries easier, it should allow you to detect
>   dupes better.  (Sidenote, abrt needs this too, when it files bugzillas)

fixed.

> * Looking over the summaries at https://oops.kernel.org/browse-reports/?distro=Fedora&search=submit
>   The first thing that comes to mind is "There's a lot of soft lockup bugs here"
>   Some means of grouping similar looking bugs would be useful.
>   (In bugzilla, clicking 'sort by summary' kinda gives this, but it still sucks).

improved && fixed

> * When Arjan ran kerneloops, he would periodically mail out a "top 10 oopses" report
>   on the latest tree. That seems like something that would be worth doing again,
>   but only after filtering out the tainted stuff as mentioned above.

I will start to do it.

> * Some kind of "find similar bugs in other bug trackers" feature would be really awesome.

still in todo.

> * There's a bunch of bugs in there that have been tainted 'W'.  These are almost never useful,
>   because we're already deep in "bad shit happened" land at that point.
>   It'll also mean you could get flooded with oopses from a single crash if something
>   keeps on spewing traces. Just give up after filing the first oops.
> 
> * Take for example: https://oops.kernel.org/browse-reports/oops-detail/?id=30410
>   This is a 2.6.27.5 kernel bug, that was filed *last week*.
>   I'd bet dollars to donuts no-one is going to give a crap about that bug.
>   I'm not sure if it's better here to never file 'ancient' bugs, or to periodically
>   archive/delete ones that have been in the db more than a few years.  
> 
> * Looking at https://oops.kernel.org/browse-reports/?function=ironlake_crtc_disable&search=submit
>   It seems the hashing algorithm for detecting dupes could use some work.
>   Many of these traces are probably exactly the same problem.
>   Are you hashing symbols in the trace beginning with '? ' ? If so, you probably shouldn't be.

hash function improved. 


Thanks for this feedback. There are still a number of improvements
planned, mostly cosmetic ones. I will keep you posted.


Anton.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists