From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD08C04A6B for ; Fri, 10 May 2019 15:50:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C127E216C4 for ; Fri, 10 May 2019 15:50:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C127E216C4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45453 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hP7nU-00025I-Si for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 11:50:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58606) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hP7T7-0000NN-VV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 11:29:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hP7T6-0008Q1-PV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 11:29:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36310) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hP7T3-0008N6-V4; Fri, 10 May 2019 11:29:50 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2575D308621C; Fri, 10 May 2019 15:29:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-116-28.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.28]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75E25648A0; Fri, 10 May 2019 15:29:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A7AE11385E4; Fri, 10 May 2019 17:29:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Kevin Wolf References: <20190502084506.8009-1-thuth@redhat.com> <20190502084506.8009-7-thuth@redhat.com> <87ef5acsce.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <3741b9b6-632a-b517-7533-818727ef75a7@redhat.com> <44a3ebee-c717-d953-8e89-c24da99209a6@redhat.com> <20190510142122.GC5887@localhost.localdomain> Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 17:29:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20190510142122.GC5887@localhost.localdomain> (Kevin Wolf's message of "Fri, 10 May 2019 16:21:22 +0200") Message-ID: <87d0kql449.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.42]); Fri, 10 May 2019 15:29:49 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 6/7] tests/qemu-iotests/group: Re-use the "auto" group for tests that can always run X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Fam Zheng , Thomas Huth , Ed Maste , qemu-block@nongnu.org, Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9?= =?utf-8?Q?e?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Christophe Fergeau , Max Reitz , Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu?= =?utf-8?Q?-Daud=C3=A9?= , Li-Wen Hsu Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Kevin Wolf writes: > Am 10.05.2019 um 10:55 hat Thomas Huth geschrieben: >> On 08/05/2019 07.47, Thomas Huth wrote: >> > On 07/05/2019 17.50, Eric Blake wrote: >> >> On 5/7/19 10:22 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> >>> On 07/05/2019 15.22, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >>>> Thomas Huth writes: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Currently, all tests are in the "auto" group. This is a little bit pointless. >> >>>>> OTOH, we need a group for the tests that we can automatically run during >> >>>>> "make check" each time, too. Tests in this new group are supposed to run >> >>>>> with every possible QEMU configuration, for example they must run with every >> >>>>> QEMU binary (also non-x86), without failing when an optional features is >> >>>>> missing (but reporting "skip" is ok), and be able to run on all kind of host >> >>>>> filesystems and users (i.e. also as "nobody" or "root"). >> >>>>> So let's use the "auto" group for this class of tests now. The initial >> >>>>> list has been determined by running the iotests with non-x86 QEMU targets >> >>>>> and with our CI pipelines on Gitlab, Cirrus-CI and Travis (i.e. including >> >>>>> macOS and FreeBSD). >> >>>> >> >>>> I wonder whether we should additionally limit "make check" to "quick" >> >>>> tests. How slow are the non-quick auto tests for you? >> >>> >> >>> I already sorted out some of the tests that run veeeery long, since the >> >>> run time on gitlab, cirrus-ci and travis is limited. "make check-block" >> >>> currently takes 3 minutes on my laptop, I think that's still ok? >> >>> >> >>> When I run the tests from the auto group that are not in the quick >> >>> group, I currently get: >> >>> >> >> >> >> My personal threshold is about 5 seconds for quick, so: >> >> >> >>> 003 1s ... >> >>> 007 2s ... >> >> >> >> Should these be moved to quick? >> > >> > I'll leave that decision up to the blocklayer folks ... I thought that >> > there might have been a different reason that these have not been put >> > into "quick" yet...? >> > >> >>> 013 5s ... >> >> >> >> this one is borderline >> >> >> >>> 014 15s ... >> >>> 015 9s ... >> >> >> >> Definitely not quick, but if you think they are still okay for auto, I >> >> can live with that. >> >> >> >>> 022 1s ... >> >> >> >> Another candidate for quick? >> >> >> >>> 023 18s ... >> >> >> >> Even longer than 14. Okay for auto? >> > >> > I think I'd give it a try. If people are complaining later that "make >> > check" is running now way too long, we still can refine the list later. >> >> Thinking about this again, "make check" now runs quite a bit longer >> indeed. So I now rather tend to remove the tests that run longer than 5s >> from the auto group instead... I think I'll send a v4 of this patch >> where I'll remove them from the auto group. > > I don't think time is everything. We should also consider how much > the tests contribute to basic code coverage. There is no point in > removing a test from the list because it takes 10 seconds, but if I > split it in two tests taking each 5 seconds, you would include both > halves. > > For example, 030, 040 and 041 are not that quick (14/11/42 seconds, > respectively), but they are the most important tests for block jobs and > covering a lot. Sure, 42 seconds is a lot, but I'd keep 030 and 040 at > least. Yes, we want block jobs covered. However, 42 seconds is a lot indeed. Can you think of ways to get a useful part of the full coverage in five seconds or less?