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

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

On 27/06/2017 09:02, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 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?

Ping on the series - do we want to try easy runtime reduction via this 
way or should I drop it?

Regards,

Tvrtko

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