Re: [RFC i-g-t 0/4] Redundant test pruning

[Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>]

On 26/06/2017 17:09, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:31:39PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>
>> Small series which saves test execution time by removing the redundant tests.
>>
>> Tvrtko Ursulin (4):
>>    igt: Remove default from the engine list
>>    gem_exec_basic: Exercise the default engine selection
>>    gem_sync: Add all and store_all subtests
>>    extended.testlist: Remove some test-subtest combinations
> 
> Ack on patches 1&2, but I'm not sold on patch 3. Atm gem_* takes a
> ridiculous amount of machine time to run, you're adding more stuff. Are
> those tests really drastially better at catching races if we run them 10x
> longer? Is there no better way to exercise the races (lots more machines,
> maybe slower ones, which is atm impossible since it just takes way, way
> too long and we need an entire farm just for one machine).

New gem_sync subtests were suggested by Chris after I send the first 
version of the series with the goal of getting the same coverage in 
faster time.

If you look at patch 4, it removes 18 * 150s of gem_sync subtests, and 
adds 4 * 150s. So in total we are 35 minutes better of in the best case, 
a bit less on smaller machines.

This is just for gem_sync, I forgot what did the saving for the series 
add up to. 1-2 hours maybe?

> Also not sure how much curating extended.testlist is worth it, just make
> the testcases faster :-) Like, roughly 100x faster overall for gem_* ... >
> But meanwhile ack on that one too.

In which one, 3, or 4, or both?

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx