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 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF6ACFA3755 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 15:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sp7oL-0002nl-J1; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 11:02:13 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sp7oG-0002WK-W6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 11:02:09 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sp7oF-0006Ov-3w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 11:02:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1726239726; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=BIXVHYkKVAOcWl5My6U+kkcZfRR0QV7Mba9k+0IaY8U=; b=BwJp9y1JiPECNnrJiI7s5LZ+6CZZf0U6CEeguRPYeDkb6RZW1R82SWr2g2rXEkglW+btOT IjfeS65DlZiH4CPzG2Yupa0DTg9QZuD9JYSpzP5NUy7NeKcJi6EbnMxS1m4b7is71xXb1+ KkZeYs9VucPnuzuEpELTEl1TpY0knyc= Received: from mail-qv1-f72.google.com (mail-qv1-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-184-uHDaddkaNjaRCPzHsL9KuQ-1; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 11:02:04 -0400 X-MC-Unique: uHDaddkaNjaRCPzHsL9KuQ-1 Received: by mail-qv1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6c353d32ea0so29116916d6.1 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 08:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1726239724; x=1726844524; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=BIXVHYkKVAOcWl5My6U+kkcZfRR0QV7Mba9k+0IaY8U=; b=ig2owY4a6Z1b7gNf0AJJh12WBxfoeIqNHDnd+n4Pl1lTHWp0CQ9Ya61NwVyN5IAfWu 1gG0baU5a32QJxT4rglS76NBp3socg/nvYyqG0XEpjfmAcvwTC33+U2RZ995ftxYAcK0 9Z8/wpwJAUZmKXH4CFQ7C2xoeFHvFmT6tDN+ZztjoGryb6Pa+etAClU/rXqzezbxbdEM C2tjTXIwPTia4/FK16b+JUFCa8lMfHFl/ts9PhQw42lgBJx0rlsGLkvsLJ/FwCQt8oJl numXPmJ08OJLm2iiHJbwNQfApmba3tYua5l+Bx/hfOMLcdCxrb23oe//bTGU5coq/F/4 CCzA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWO2fl2hRoBZLnCRW2o6MkUV6/3VnyH58NgMMKxzd6eRgSl6nT4ZhveGDvDGSwFTkMCBqQIsDZvrvRb@nongnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwqcgnwoFYyrO61Udu4QYeBWeNOLFfDmc54y+QhQd7N7d4pDTOW dQYhCyQA8Zv+bHcQyJV4hPrS2HccOS365WgoE6guOk1XTwQZ5KzysThHPQy2RBpraGcqtHDCN0W WWuLJPzUQTIYHay5YDzOV/au/K3AyI+3F26ymgGh1tQZ7sa2vmZPB X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:4883:b0:6c5:f46:ced2 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6c57357a6damr88036956d6.35.1726239723875; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 08:02:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE6Si6SQev+/BDAOCE1IH8E87SeffxyYqlpt1XJAwaEuDJgu+wGt8AtPA6m7wxQsCy5BtDV0Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:4883:b0:6c5:f46:ced2 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6c57357a6damr88036516d6.35.1726239723417; Fri, 13 Sep 2024 08:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x1n (pool-99-254-121-117.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.254.121.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6a1803df08f44-6c53474d749sm67665736d6.92.2024.09.13.08.02.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 13 Sep 2024 08:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 11:02:00 -0400 From: Peter Xu To: Peter Maydell Cc: Fabiano Rosas , Hyman Huang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eric Blake , Markus Armbruster , David Hildenbrand , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 10/10] tests/migration-tests: Add test case for responsive CPU throttle Message-ID: References: <87frq8lcgp.fsf@suse.de> <87seu7qhao.fsf@suse.de> <87ed5qq8e2.fsf@suse.de> <87bk0trifq.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=peterx@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.147, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 04:14:20PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sept 2024 at 16:09, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 09:13:16AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Sept 2024 at 22:26, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > > > > I don't think we're discussing total CI time at this point, so the math > > > > doesn't really add up. We're not looking into making the CI finish > > > > faster. We're looking into making migration-test finish faster. That > > > > would reduce timeouts in CI, speed-up make check and reduce the chance > > > > of random race conditions* affecting other people/staging runs. > > > > > > Right. The reason migration-test appears on my radar is because > > > it is very frequently the thing that shows up as "this sometimes > > > just fails or just times out and if you hit retry it goes away > > > again". That might not be migration-test's fault specifically, > > > because those retries tend to be certain CI configs (s390, > > > the i686-tci one), and I have some theories about what might be > > > causing it (e.g. build system runs 4 migration-tests in parallel, > > > which means 8 QEMU processes which is too many for the number > > > of host CPUs). But right now I look at CI job failures and my reaction > > > is "oh, it's the migration-test failing yet again" :-( > > > > > > For some examples from this week: > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/jobs/7802183144 > > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/jobs/7799842373 <--------[1] > > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/jobs/7786579152 <--------[2] > > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/jobs/7786579155 > > > > Ah right, the TIMEOUT is unfortunate, especially if tests can be run in > > parallel. It indeed sounds like no good way to finally solve.. I don't > > also see how speeding up / reducing tests in migration test would help, as > > that's (from some degree..) is the same as tuning the timeout value bigger. > > When the tests are less it'll fit into 480s window, but maybe it's too > > quick now we wonder whether we should shrink it to e.g. 90s, but then it > > can timeout again when on a busy host with less capability of concurrency. > > For the TIMEOUT part on cross-i686-tci I plan to try this patch: > https://patchew.org/QEMU/20240912151003.2045031-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org/ > which makes 'make check' single-threaded; that will help to see > if the parallelism is a problem. (If it is then we might want > to do a more generalised approach rather than just for that one > CI job.) Sounds good. > > > But indeed there're two ERRORs ([1,2] above).. I collected some more info > > here before the log expires: > > > So.. it's the same test (multifd/tcp/plain/cancel) that is failing on > > different host / arch being tested. What is more weird is the two failures > > are different, the 2nd failure throw out a TLS error even though the test > > doesn't yet have tls involved. > > > > Fabiano, is this the issue you're looking at? > > > > Peter, do you think it'll be helpful if we temporarily mark this test as > > "slow" too so it's not run in CI (so we still run it ourselves when prepare > > migration PR, with the hope that it can reproduce)? > > If you think that specific test is flaky then I think that's > probably a good idea. As usual with this kind of thing, > probably best to have a comment next to the test noting > why and with a URL to a gitlab issue for it, so we don't > forget why we disabled the test. Looks like Fabiano root-caused the issue. We'll see how that goes, or we can prepare a patch to make it optional with the comments in place. Thanks, -- Peter Xu