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 7DE36E77188 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AD53C0B8E for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:48:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::5]) (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 8FF173C0652 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:48:25 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-5.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.131; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (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-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 154E46161B0 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:48:24 +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-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1483E1F38E; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:48:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1735919304; 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=JFVhUwOaQVa5bPuo3VeykEwZMCFwj6uWPNXacESQJKw=; b=BzOvy16BwgIt5dPIjLjcB8z9Ge8DCfVAELx1WPEVKWpKbjTuh7ZjCphOJaKA22r9lN59yL kHaiKZ1ak4OgeNZg6yY6wkG4+81rN06b0onuRGnQ/1kDmT/vCrfEYxevJPb4KDtKz/P8Tu xEaYyqv3TfFO75ATbIt3c7K/JlNlAjg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1735919304; 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=JFVhUwOaQVa5bPuo3VeykEwZMCFwj6uWPNXacESQJKw=; b=X/MhdLp+tIzFMVcTkKbvmy4J7IIAZXO+MY9VM7eAZrOjYygwsSkn5A7Ob9UrZb5jAOiE1D 51rMf0MpUNzIQgBw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1735919304; 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=JFVhUwOaQVa5bPuo3VeykEwZMCFwj6uWPNXacESQJKw=; b=BzOvy16BwgIt5dPIjLjcB8z9Ge8DCfVAELx1WPEVKWpKbjTuh7ZjCphOJaKA22r9lN59yL kHaiKZ1ak4OgeNZg6yY6wkG4+81rN06b0onuRGnQ/1kDmT/vCrfEYxevJPb4KDtKz/P8Tu xEaYyqv3TfFO75ATbIt3c7K/JlNlAjg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1735919304; 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=JFVhUwOaQVa5bPuo3VeykEwZMCFwj6uWPNXacESQJKw=; b=X/MhdLp+tIzFMVcTkKbvmy4J7IIAZXO+MY9VM7eAZrOjYygwsSkn5A7Ob9UrZb5jAOiE1D 51rMf0MpUNzIQgBw== 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 F317B13418; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:48:23 +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 cLSnOMcGeGd+cQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 03 Jan 2025 15:48:23 +0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:48:08 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Li Wang Message-ID: References: <20241222072251.13150-1-liwang@redhat.com> <20250102124319.GA81987@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.30 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-0.986]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(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)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/2] lib: multiply the timeout if detect slow kconfigsD 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: Martin Doucha , ltp@lists.linux.it 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! > Yes, the benefit of multiplying TIMEOUT (on a slow system) is not only > to avoid increasing the actual execution time of the test, but also to give > the system more time to wait for the test to complete the final work. > > Original: > | -- timeout -- | -- max_runtime -- | > > Previous: > | -- timeout -- | -------- max_runtime * 4 -------- | > > Now: > | -------- timeout * 4 -------- | -- max_runtime -- | The problems I see here: There are tests, I think this covers mostly the IO stress tests, where the max runtime may be significantly larger than the timeout, so multiplying only the timeout may not be enough there. I wanted to eventually move to a shorter default timeout, e.g. 10s once we have enough max_runtime anotation in the testcases. So in the end we may eventually need both max_runtime and runtime in the tst_test structure. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp