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 71FC9E77197 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:50:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BBE3C1817 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 17:50:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (in-7.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.7]) (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 4BF4E3C0372 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 17:49:55 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-7.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2]) (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-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A817220A063 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 17:49:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (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-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73D9D1F385; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:49:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none 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 1C1C013763; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:49:50 +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 R6OJBC5bfWdxZAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 07 Jan 2025 16:49:50 +0000 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 17:49:43 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: <20250107164943.GA396751@pevik> References: <20250106125255.GC302614@pevik> <20250106153624.GB323533@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25478, ipnet:::/0, country:RU] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 73D9D1F385 X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-7.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/2] lib: multiply the timeout if detect slow kconfigsD 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: Martin Doucha , 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! > > Ah, you mean we multiply the overall test time limit results->timeout, > > right? > > e.g. > > results->timeout = (default_30s_timeout + tst_test->timeout) * > > TIMEOUT_MUL + tst_test->runtime * RUNTIME_MUL; > > if (tst_has_slow_kconfig()) > > results->timeout *= 4; > That would work too, but since the runtime will be always constant (once > only the test that call tst_remaning_runtime() use runtime and the rest > of the tests is moved to timeout) we may as well multiply the timeout > part. > However this detail does not matter that much, the most imporatant part > is the clear separation of the guessed upper bound and the actual > runtime that is used to controll how long should the loop in the test > spin. Thanks this for explanation. BTW do you plan to send a patch soon? If not I would prefer to temporarily revert 2da30df24e (or just *= 4), which causes some tests to timeout. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp