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 302C2E77197 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:35:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7373C2024 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:35:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.6]) (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 52DD53C0652 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:35:08 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-6.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1]) (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 A8E6E140F66C for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:35:06 +0100 (CET) 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 5E57C21114; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:35:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1736418905; h=from:from: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=UzKH73cPSEJaYmGxdyI5QS875WC6XGw3lVS0wVK28Zw=; b=wvSW0MXbJ3V3nOEfv9O1t7EU8tPrhcvedlbk5TYwewVs3wV9eqMUkd30e0/P1Dqthc/pa+ g5aBSkNd2ZDA9tb3d14E5v6QN8FPMJLYfRrUbYAPCotvyawNku0kHUAkh7PuXcFyHXIUVZ gm1DzEFzZqbdt3HyTHzpPnIHOkSBovk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1736418905; h=from:from: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=UzKH73cPSEJaYmGxdyI5QS875WC6XGw3lVS0wVK28Zw=; b=L2I2yOUuYjYt2FFPGLxEpDzysxSqkemWDiiD8oLW2E4VaUXHvBkIcMzoDLOslsSj12/Nxm U9fzI6n4nd53LhCQ== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1736418905; h=from:from: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=UzKH73cPSEJaYmGxdyI5QS875WC6XGw3lVS0wVK28Zw=; b=wvSW0MXbJ3V3nOEfv9O1t7EU8tPrhcvedlbk5TYwewVs3wV9eqMUkd30e0/P1Dqthc/pa+ g5aBSkNd2ZDA9tb3d14E5v6QN8FPMJLYfRrUbYAPCotvyawNku0kHUAkh7PuXcFyHXIUVZ gm1DzEFzZqbdt3HyTHzpPnIHOkSBovk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1736418905; h=from:from: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=UzKH73cPSEJaYmGxdyI5QS875WC6XGw3lVS0wVK28Zw=; b=L2I2yOUuYjYt2FFPGLxEpDzysxSqkemWDiiD8oLW2E4VaUXHvBkIcMzoDLOslsSj12/Nxm U9fzI6n4nd53LhCQ== 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 4CF10139AB; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:35:05 +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 Xpq/EVmmf2fbFAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 09 Jan 2025 10:35:05 +0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:34:48 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Li Wang Message-ID: References: <20250108071201.26984-1-liwang@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.30 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:email,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCh] lib: redefine the overall timeout logic of test 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: , Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it, Martin Doucha 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! > > 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