From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 706F8CD37AE for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:32:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3F73C17A3 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:32:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1E9E3C0CCD for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:32:00 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-6.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1312F1402E10 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:31:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D989F219D7; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:31:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1725427919; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5MyhVXx6HLKjg7LRW2f8cwQ/X5gKTrVO4aZqpwj7bEE=; b=uslm+rFYLTQKkKjPlXDuAtIpk4iYS7VkXl+oO7OaZkq4RL8YBOviOJe6DHwxJisZfwMUJo r0NMY0iNOUZ90o2OEhO/3OyoQjzwJNl/KZ1TI1hfVMrZxZrM3Ed3sS+shCJW/T9r//Qqhr PUjRuMqemi0UJT6+CnAbKXl751yJ9I8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1725427919; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5MyhVXx6HLKjg7LRW2f8cwQ/X5gKTrVO4aZqpwj7bEE=; b=27SdM+Zl2ZfSFkRigUQzay2fvBqEn6eMRSEe5KsGue8ByXIH0jL0q70+kWH8mHxsaC5nKN yOo/zvwU/kdX7BCQ== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1725427918; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5MyhVXx6HLKjg7LRW2f8cwQ/X5gKTrVO4aZqpwj7bEE=; b=OmObthTjqWAwJiqTWNye9FYAdSBGwe3aXB/9epnPrIcL+v3iYove/qnotSZXXIMjNrdMUA /SHXirPHSPqM6wWl1PrTttTkmXQntjGeh7Uv9BOnjMjw2OwGmCZsfRLdRH5UmsmhRmSEWE UZVxFrl8YBmtzYgyIoyp8UGIbvMVO6M= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1725427918; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5MyhVXx6HLKjg7LRW2f8cwQ/X5gKTrVO4aZqpwj7bEE=; b=NGOVNki+LXDKhHCeBPtoubsbE1CfFdtXj7B4a8PdNBi/+KVNKh88qX36runN+5+NrOJKWH ndHMxXCVdjWXxODQ== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA18B139E2; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id 66wXLM7w12b5TAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 04 Sep 2024 05:31:58 +0000 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:31:57 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: <20240904053157.GA836933@pevik> References: <20240903140326.773060-1-pvorel@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-7.50 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-0.997]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/1] swapoff01: Define max_runtime 45s X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > Hi! > > Test run mostly below 1 sec per filesystem, only NTFS is very slow > > ~ 10-15 sec depending on architecture. > If part of the slowdown is caused by the fact that we format the > filesystems the real question is if all the tests that format and mount > a device should have a max_runtime defined. It may make sense to > increment the max_runtime in the test library to compensate for the > mkfs, but it looks that it's not the mkfs that is slow. > I did some measurements for the swapoff01 case and the whole testrun > runs for about 10 seconds for me. If I change the test to do > tst_brk(TCONF, ...) as the first thing in the test setup its 1s. So > writing out the 1MB of swapfile and running mkswap and swapon() on that > takes about 90% of the runtime. Thanks for your investigation. > So yes it looks like the actual test needs some runtime defined, > although I'm not sure how long it should be. We probably need a > reference machine to callibrate this on. I would avoid any emulated CPU > and choose a real hardware. I guess one of the RPis e.g. Pi Zero would > be a good choice since they are widely available and slow by any modern > standards. This makes sense. Kind regards, Petr > > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel > > --- > > Changes v1->v2: > > * 60 => 45 > > testcases/kernel/syscalls/swapoff/swapoff01.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/swapoff/swapoff01.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/swapoff/swapoff01.c > > index 314630267d..ef75c92de0 100644 > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/swapoff/swapoff01.c > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/swapoff/swapoff01.c > > @@ -53,5 +53,6 @@ static struct tst_test test = { > > .all_filesystems = 1, > > .needs_root = 1, > > .test_all = verify_swapoff, > > + .max_runtime = 45, > > .setup = setup > > }; > > -- > > 2.45.2 -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp