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 C9FBBE77188 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2025 12:10:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149B93C3346 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2025 13:10:44 +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 A379F3C0349 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2025 13:10:27 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-7.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-7.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22C84222399 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2025 13:10:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (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 5CABB1F399; Mon, 6 Jan 2025 12:10:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1736165426; 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=cYPzPB5aQNtdLHKuyLvH/08Tf/7z6R3xdqpS0QuHZ+s=; b=DGdChZc5YBdNA2wVwFqvXM5bmHG9cROY5dp8AIITE9a4KFEeRyOcOWcBP1QaNyG0vAkdAs Lo1W+T7apzoUGmkxe8krko7OOUrXc+SulJyWPhipdrcFN88aukxfbX6uKZ4N+Ggl5jeS+X hUXw6lqtPrHPcvyeEC5qyPD8OXb9kso= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1736165426; 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=cYPzPB5aQNtdLHKuyLvH/08Tf/7z6R3xdqpS0QuHZ+s=; b=cPPncpKSutm9XEkCEJAx8Vcr/hyeAfwXSb/swyYzXTGScUDOAx5liyg5BxxrSTZ5gDxtyB 4x2eYH1FoLagZ+Cg== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=nQPnu2FE; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=MIGaapQg DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1736165425; 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=cYPzPB5aQNtdLHKuyLvH/08Tf/7z6R3xdqpS0QuHZ+s=; b=nQPnu2FE6axJcuAIGiwiqBzUBRthKQ+F2qv67BZgovWxUXuXWCRmpIO3VzHTvUfEgE9mEd lxCL8lMxHmSuii8qcZ1A3CM18Igst0aTLoY9CSnXIHGNbsZy/0aaq72OZwHL+q4FQOV9ph 9/r3+wjjBX8RFdWKeZLbinUdR8H4+DI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1736165425; 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=cYPzPB5aQNtdLHKuyLvH/08Tf/7z6R3xdqpS0QuHZ+s=; b=MIGaapQgaMRxkm6Ro/nVKsRhZTKwSXaCBQaxCdhHZYT0JxezxFwi3vUFgOI/5H/PSsU3Wl P6gBZXH0FgVJZ4Cw== 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 44CE4137DA; Mon, 6 Jan 2025 12:10:25 +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 /YB8EDHIe2enGAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Mon, 06 Jan 2025 12:10:25 +0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 13:10:11 +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-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5CABB1F399 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.51 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; RBL_SPAMHAUS_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; SPAMHAUS_XBL(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6] X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-7.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! > I did a quick grep that some ltp-aiodio tests set it to 1800 sec, which > only 8/91 occupation in the LTP testcases/, I'm not sure if it's worth > adding a new field for those few stress tests. > > And with the previous method, the multiple 4 max_runtime for 1800s > is 2hours per test up limit, I can't imagine how long we will get eventually > in the whole test time. > > Maybe another way is to create a separate function in a header > like aio_common.h (or in high-level dir) for handling that significantly > larger runtime tests. > > BTW, we have TST_UNLIMITED_RUNTIME choice or, invoke > tst_set_max_runtime() in somehow. I stil think that misusing max_runtime, which is supposed to be upper bound for the actual test runtime was a mistake. Maybe we should have called the max_runtime a timeout and add runtime for tests that needs it. That way we would have timeout compromising of two parts, one would be the 30s that is used for all tests and second part from the tst_test structure. And then the sum of these two would be multiplied by the timeout multipliers. Then we would have a runtime, which would be used only by tests that call tst_remaining_runtime(). The overall test timeout would be then: (default_30s_timeout + tst_test->timeout) * TIMEOUT_MUL + tst_test->runtime * RUNTIME_MUL What do you think? -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp