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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox