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 2597FE77199 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 07:47:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBE43C20CA for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 08:47:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-7.smtp.seeweb.it (in-7.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::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 6CCFE3C1ABD for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 08:46:51 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-7.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1; 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-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 924C2200168 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 08:46:50 +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 D419921133; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 07:46:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1736408808; 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=nvVXniB6u5YP3WCyuM0o48dteqCVTHPnRTvWlSSBsPk=; b=pQDge4QSlhcR/eLHGKirL/mgo/PAV2JsU5VQAbZeGLdBUf9XcqWLSx6Md+WZyomsSptWWG fk+E0ZRXAGhlM3PQGdEYU1BgunYdECQHE4Iv3yRkhW0kvkR6L9tvK5Eh7U7sna1KfPbl1Y kDDHPTHn53q76k/PtWbAYZK3z+nfN1g= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1736408808; 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=nvVXniB6u5YP3WCyuM0o48dteqCVTHPnRTvWlSSBsPk=; b=SEIP+tCKV0dyNZCQZHsyIdknP6pzrDzpVWaL/74n9HBy1bMsAVU83jtNeN/GsKYNsNcVlj /yWzv8G/uGidkQCw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1736408808; 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=nvVXniB6u5YP3WCyuM0o48dteqCVTHPnRTvWlSSBsPk=; b=pQDge4QSlhcR/eLHGKirL/mgo/PAV2JsU5VQAbZeGLdBUf9XcqWLSx6Md+WZyomsSptWWG fk+E0ZRXAGhlM3PQGdEYU1BgunYdECQHE4Iv3yRkhW0kvkR6L9tvK5Eh7U7sna1KfPbl1Y kDDHPTHn53q76k/PtWbAYZK3z+nfN1g= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1736408808; 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=nvVXniB6u5YP3WCyuM0o48dteqCVTHPnRTvWlSSBsPk=; b=SEIP+tCKV0dyNZCQZHsyIdknP6pzrDzpVWaL/74n9HBy1bMsAVU83jtNeN/GsKYNsNcVlj /yWzv8G/uGidkQCw== 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 BF7FB13876; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 07:46:48 +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 DdTELeh+f2cEXQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 09 Jan 2025 07:46:48 +0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 08:50:52 +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 [-8.30 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; 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]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; 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)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,suse.cz:email] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-7.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! > I have a different view on the readahead02 test, because the runtime > resetting is based on pieces of each IO test elapsed time, then reset > runtime for next time. This applies to any kernels, no matter the faster > or slower, the elapsed time will be enough for the next tcases[]. > > If we put the worst-case runtime into .timeout and reset for the next > tcases[], which will be multiplied again on debug kernel, actually we > don't need that since the dynamic runtime comes from a real test. I do not get why we need to reset anything. The test library does reset the timeout after each test iteration: for (i = 0; i < tst_test->tcnt; i++) { saved_results = *results; heartbeat(); ^ this resets the timeout timer so each iteration runs with the whole timeout tst_test->test(i); if (tst_getpid() != main_pid) exit(0); tst_reap_children(); if (results_equal(&saved_results, results)) tst_brk(TBROK, "Test %i haven't reported results!", i); } > Maybe I missed something in the test, but we can treat readahead02 > in a separate work. The new patch 4/4 should be modified using .runtime > instead of .timeout. Feel free to comment your thoughts there. Why is readahead02 so special that we need to do more than the usuall? That is: - measure how long one tests iteration takes on slower hardware - multiply that by two and set that as a .timeout -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp