public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it, Martin Doucha <martin.doucha@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCh] lib: redefine the overall timeout logic of test
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:34:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z3-mSNc5YtTMYmM0@yuki.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEemH2epi7XZiPXP=NOQpV0rLpOT7dxt8eoadZg5RR3r5c=mwA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi!
> > The reason for calling tst_set_runtime() in each iteration is that we can
> > directly utilize the real elapsed time as runtime and don't need to do
> > additional measurements.
> >
> 
> Forgot to say, that each iteration has four sub-tcases to accomplish.
> The recommended way (you gave above) is to regard them as one
> big test and reset timeout by heartbeat() in tst_test->tcnt. If this value
> is big enough, that's fine. But I fear that value (come from measurement)
> is still not covered all situations.

I agree that the test is a bit unpredictable, as it synces filesytem and
drops caches twice in each iteration. However the .timeout is a safety
mechanism, so nothing stops us for making it 4x or 8x of the usuall
test execution time on slower hardware.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

  reply	other threads:[~2025-01-09 10:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-01-08  7:12 [LTP] [RFC PATCh] lib: redefine the overall timeout logic of test Li Wang
2025-01-08  9:18 ` Cyril Hrubis
2025-01-08 10:49   ` Li Wang
2025-01-08 11:37     ` Li Wang
2025-01-08 12:33       ` Cyril Hrubis
2025-01-09  6:31         ` Li Wang
2025-01-09  7:50           ` Cyril Hrubis
2025-01-09  8:42             ` Li Wang
2025-01-09  8:51               ` Li Wang
2025-01-09 10:34                 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2025-01-09 10:45                   ` Li Wang

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=Z3-mSNc5YtTMYmM0@yuki.lan \
    --to=chrubis@suse.cz \
    --cc=liwang@redhat.com \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    --cc=martin.doucha@suse.com \
    /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