From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kselftest/alsa: Run PCM tests for multiple cards in parallel
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2023 09:37:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877cwxn7wj.wl-tiwai@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230203-alsa-pcm-test-card-thread-v1-1-59941640ebba@kernel.org>
On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 20:52:47 +0100,
Mark Brown wrote:
>
> With each test taking 4 seconds the runtime of pcm-test can add up. Since
> generally each card in the system is physically independent and will be
> unaffected by what's going on with other cards we can mitigate this by
> testing each card in parallel. Make a list of cards as we enumerate the
> system and then start a thread for each, then join the threads to ensure
> they have all finished. The threads each run the same tests we currently
> run for each PCM on the card before exiting.
>
> The list of PCMs is kept global since it helps with global operations
> like working out our planned number of tests and identifying missing PCMs
> and it seemed neater to check for PCMs on the right card in the card
> thread than make every PCM loop iterate over cards as well.
>
> We don't run per-PCM tests in parallel since in embedded systems it can
> be the case that resources are shared between the PCMs and operations on
> one PCM on a card may constrain what can be done on another PCM on the same
> card leading to potentially unstable results.
>
> We use a mutex to ensure that the reporting of results is serialised and we
> don't have issues with anything like the current test number, we could do
> this in the kselftest framework but it seems like this might cause problems
> for other tests that are doing lower level testing and building in
> constrained environments such as nolibc so this seems more sensible.
>
> Note that the ordering of the tests can't be guaranteed as things stand,
> this does not seem like a major problem since the numbering of tests often
> changes as test programs are changed so results parsers are expected to
> rely on the test name rather than the test numbers. We also now prefix the
> machine generated test name when printing the description of the test since
> this is logged before streaming starts.
>
> On my two card desktop system this reduces the overall runtime by a
> third.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Thanks, applied now.
Takashi
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-04 8:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-03 19:52 [PATCH] kselftest/alsa: Run PCM tests for multiple cards in parallel Mark Brown
2023-02-04 8:37 ` Takashi Iwai [this message]
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=877cwxn7wj.wl-tiwai@suse.de \
--to=tiwai@suse.de \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tiwai@suse.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox