Add linux arm/arm64 libraries checked coreclr test runs

[safern]

We should be running libraries tests on checked coreclr in arm/arm64 -- if we want to add these for mono as well, I'll let @naricc and @SamMonoRT to confirm... I can put up a follow up PR if needed.

This depends on: #36909

For more details: #36909 (comment)

cc: @dotnet/runtime-infrastructure @sdmaclea

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @ViktorHofer
Notify danmosemsft if you want to be subscribed.

[jashook]

Lets add one runtime at a time in case we hit capacity issues.

[safern]

Lets add one runtime at a time in case we hit capacity issues.

Makes sense.

[naricc]

I haven't actually been working on the libraries tests for mono, only the runtime tests, so I'm not sure if there is a reason they have not been enabled on arm64, although I think we will eventually want to. @EgorBo@steveisok Do you know?

[SamMonoRT]

This is something we want to enable for Mono runtime too. This is being tracked via the first table in #33381@steveisok is tracking that work.

[jashook]

@safern looks like there is a test that should be disabled?

[safern]

@safern looks like there is a test that should be disabled?

Yeah. I'll update the PR.

Also I think we should also include alpine_arm64, what do you think?

[sdmaclea]

alpine_arm64 is apparently the only one which would have caught the libunwind regression.

[jkoritzinsky]

We should definitely include an Alpine leg in PR runs if possible. We would have caught the issue with Alpine test runs using the dotnet CLI if we had an alpine run.

[jashook]

Would this have been caught with alpine arm64 runtime tests?

[safern]

Would this have been caught with alpine arm64 runtime tests?

Yeah.

[jkoritzinsky]

Actually, yes, that's where they would have been caught.

[jashook]

That seems to be the larger issue then

[safern]

@jashook looks good? In case this is green I'd like to merge.