From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v4 1/2] lib: introduce tst_timeout_remaining()
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 07:54:16 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1443598375.43662526.1535630056840.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180830113034.GC6363@rei.lan>
----- Original Message -----
> Hi!
> > > I didn't want to do that, because a test might want calculate something
> > > based on timeout in setup(), for example to find current overall timeout
> > > value with LTP_TIMEOUT_MUL taken into account.
> > >
> > > For that to work, we have to initialize tst_start_time prior to
> > > tst_test->setup().
> >
> > Fair enough, also the alarm() in the test library pid is set before we
> > run the test setup, so if the test setup would take a few seconds we
> > will be off with the calculation. Although that could be fixed by
> > calling heartbeat before we run the loop in testrun(), which I guess
> > should be done anyway. That in turn would allow for your patch to have
> > the clock_gettime only in the heartbeat function, right?
Correct. We could replace it with call to hearbeat():
--- a/lib/tst_test.c
+++ b/lib/tst_test.c
@@ -929,9 +929,7 @@ static void testrun(void)
unsigned long long stop_time = 0;
int cont = 1;
- if (tst_clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &tst_start_time))
- tst_res(TWARN | TERRNO, "tst_clock_gettime() failed");
-
+ heartbeat();
add_paths();
do_test_setup();
but then we should get rid of extra alarm() call in tst_set_timeout(),
because new hearbeat() call will do it anyway (it will send signal,
and handler in lib will call alarm()):
@@ -1038,9 +1036,7 @@ void tst_set_timeout(int timeout)
results->timeout/3600, (results->timeout%3600)/60,
results->timeout % 60);
- if (getpid() == lib_pid)
- alarm(results->timeout);
- else
+ if (getpid() != lib_pid)
heartbeat();
}
>
> Actually we would have to do the heartbeat before and after the setup.
Why after setup? Doesn't the time spent in setup count towards test time?
> So we should go with your version unless we add a tst_get_timeout()
> function that would return the test timeout, which, given that the
> timeout is stored in tst_test structure would just do:
>
> static inline int tst_get_timeout(void)
> {
> return test.timeout;
> }
>
> --
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis@suse.cz
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-30 11:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-30 8:55 [LTP] [PATCH v4 1/2] lib: introduce tst_timeout_remaining() Jan Stancek
2018-08-30 8:55 ` [LTP] [PATCH v4 2/2] move_pages12: end early if runtime gets close to test time Jan Stancek
2018-08-30 10:42 ` [LTP] [PATCH v4 1/2] lib: introduce tst_timeout_remaining() Cyril Hrubis
2018-08-30 11:01 ` Jan Stancek
2018-08-30 11:22 ` Cyril Hrubis
2018-08-30 11:30 ` Cyril Hrubis
2018-08-30 11:54 ` Jan Stancek [this message]
2018-08-30 12:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
2018-08-30 12:17 ` Jan Stancek
2018-08-30 12:41 ` Cyril Hrubis
2018-09-03 5:50 ` Jan Stancek
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=1443598375.43662526.1535630056840.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com \
--to=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/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