From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [Automated-testing] [PATCH 3/4] lib: Introduce concept of max_test_runtime
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 21:44:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMZgONrus6i45R9U@pevik> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fd006cd4-2f65-138a-8907-94153ee3b45e@suse.cz>
Hi all,
> On 09. 06. 21 15:32, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> > Hi!
> >>> - the scaled value is then divided, if needed, so that we end up a
> >>> correct maximal runtime for an instance of a test, i.e. we have
> >>> max runtime for an instance fork_testrun() that is inside of
> >>> .test_variants and .all_filesystems loops
> >> Now "Max runtime per iteration" can vary, right? I.e. on .all_filesystems
> >> runtime for each filesystems depends on number of filesystems? E.g. writev03.c
> >> with setup .timeout = 600 on 2 filesystems is 5 min (300s), but with all 9
> >> filesystems is about 1 min. We should document that author should expect max
> >> number of filesystems. What happen with these values in the (long) future, when
> >> LTP support new filesystem (or drop some)? This was a reason for me to define in
> >> the test value for "Max runtime per iteration", not whole run.
> > That's one of the downsides of this approach.
> > The reason why I choose this approach is that you can set upper cap for
> > the whole test run and not only for a single filesystem/variant.
> > Also this way the test timeout corresponds to the maximal test runtime.
> > Another option would be to redefine the timeout to be timeout per a
> > fork_testrun() instance, which would make the approach slightly easier
> > in some places, however that would mean either changing default test
> > timeout to much smaller value and annotating all long running tests.
> > Hmm, I guess that annotating all long running tests and changing default
> > timeout may be a good idea regardless this approach.
> Some fuzzysync tests have long run time by design because running too
> few loops on broken systems will not trigger the bug. Limiting maximum
> program execution time may be useful for quick smoke tests but it's not
> usable for real test runs where we want reliable reproducibility.
Interesting.
> I'd prefer adding a command line option to tst_test (e.g. -m) that would
> just print test metadata, including total timeout of all fork_testrun()
> subtests, and exit. Static metadata is not a sufficient solution for
FYI I suggested this some time ago with private chat with Cyril, he mentioned
that there were some problems with it. IMHO it'd be great to implement it.
> this because the same test binary may have different runtimes on
> different system configurations, for example because the list of
> available filesystems may change arbitrarily between test runs. It'd be
> great if test runners other than runltp-ng could get a straighforward
> timeout number without reimplementing a calculation that may change in
> future versions of LTP.
+1
Kind regards,
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-13 19:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-09 11:46 [LTP] [PATCH 0/4] Introduce a concept of test runtime cap Cyril Hrubis
2021-06-09 11:46 ` [LTP] [PATCH 1/4] lib: tst_supported_fs_types: Add tst_fs_max_types() Cyril Hrubis
2021-06-09 11:46 ` [LTP] [PATCH 2/4] lib: tst_test: Move timeout scaling out of fork_testrun() Cyril Hrubis
2021-06-09 11:46 ` [LTP] [PATCH 3/4] lib: Introduce concept of max_test_runtime Cyril Hrubis
2021-06-09 13:24 ` [LTP] [Automated-testing] " Petr Vorel
2021-06-09 13:32 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-06-09 14:05 ` Petr Vorel
2021-06-09 13:43 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-06-11 15:07 ` Martin Doucha
2021-06-13 19:44 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2021-06-14 8:02 ` Richard Palethorpe
2021-06-09 14:44 ` [LTP] " Richard Palethorpe
2021-06-09 11:46 ` [LTP] [PATCH 4/4] syscalls/writev03: Adjust test runtime Cyril Hrubis
2021-06-09 14:54 ` [LTP] [PATCH 0/4] Introduce a concept of test runtime cap Richard Palethorpe
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=YMZgONrus6i45R9U@pevik \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--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