From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: "Lofstedt, Marta" <marta.lofstedt@intel.com>,
"igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: "Sarvela, Tomi P" <tomi.p.sarvela@intel.com>,
"Peres, Martin" <martin.peres@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] Intel CI blacklist suggestion for tests that are skipped on all shards
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 13:05:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87eflx3vqw.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA5F6A4B62957246A95956419746064382B2C2E6@IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com>
On Wed, 07 Feb 2018, "Lofstedt, Marta" <marta.lofstedt@intel.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jani Nikula [mailto:jani.nikula@linux.intel.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:42 PM
>> To: Lofstedt, Marta <marta.lofstedt@intel.com>; igt-
>> dev@lists.freedesktop.org
>> Cc: Sarvela, Tomi P <tomi.p.sarvela@intel.com>; Peres, Martin
>> <martin.peres@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [igt-dev] Intel CI blacklist suggestion for tests that are skipped on
>> all shards
>>
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2018, "Lofstedt, Marta" <marta.lofstedt@intel.com> wrote:
>> > After summarizing the skip time for our shards:
>> > GLK: 428s, APL: 371s, SNB:325s, KBL:283, HSW:182s
>>
>> Why does it take so long on any of those platforms to skip the tests?
>
> I believe it is the huge amount of skipped tests that is the main
> culprit, ~1500*0,1 seconds is real time. And the new DRRS test
> contribute a lot.
>
> Also, I summarized some timings of the the kms_frontbuffer_tracking on
> GLK-shards:
>
> Total time = 2153s, note this is more than half of the total GLK-shard
> runtime. Skipped time = 238s, this has more than doubled due to new
> DRRS tests
> Fail time = 1365s, this is mostly for the PSR tests that have been
> failing for months, due to unsupported panels being shipped with GLK
> RVPs. Unfortunately we don't have a full set of supported PSR
> panels. And if we changed to supported PSR panels I assume that the
> runtime would only increase further.
Okay. I'm just wondering about the possibilities of optimizing the
skipping in the tests themselves, perhaps by bailing out earlier,
vs. maintainability of a single big blacklist which combines plenty of
features across plenty of platforms.
BR,
Jani.
>
>
>>
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-07 11:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-06 11:17 [igt-dev] Intel CI blacklist suggestion for tests that are skipped on all shards Lofstedt, Marta
2018-02-06 18:41 ` Jani Nikula
2018-02-07 7:07 ` Lofstedt, Marta
2018-02-07 11:05 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2018-02-07 11:12 ` Lofstedt, Marta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87eflx3vqw.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=marta.lofstedt@intel.com \
--cc=martin.peres@intel.com \
--cc=tomi.p.sarvela@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.