From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 16:45:14 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2 6/6] zram: Increase timeout according to used devices In-Reply-To: References: <20210129194144.31299-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20210129194144.31299-7-pvorel@suse.cz> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it > > Hi! > > > > + TST_TIMEOUT=$((dev_num*200)) > > > Actually on heavy loaded machine this is not enough due BTRFS. > > > I can add something like dev_num*600 or even -1 (then previous commit would not > > > be needed, but IMHO still useful). > > I would still prefer if we had a timeout there, -1 is for something that > > cannot be predicted. > > Also we do not expect machine to be heavily loaded, in that case half of > > LTP tests would time out. > > So I would just measure how long the test takes, then multiply it by 5 > > or something like that and put that in as a timeout. > Do you mean to use high enough static timeout defined before startup (working > for maximum possible filesystems)? And create tst_set_timeout() for shell as > independent effort? BTW looking at the docs for C API tst_set_timeout() is expected to be run in the setup function. Thus this patchset can be reused (just extended). Kind regards, Petr > Kind regards, > Petr