From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44398) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dkR8q-0000UQ-Fl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 04:36:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dkR8n-0005JR-De for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 04:36:00 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43258) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dkR8n-0005Ik-5H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 04:35:57 -0400 References: <20170816082650.21880-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <223c4e3c-097f-5a91-37fa-df4bfb427d60@redhat.com> <20170822010917.GO12356@umbus.fritz.box> <3f0dc918-0f55-e2f4-bf47-fe4abf5453bb@redhat.com> <20170822112046.GC12356@umbus.fritz.box> <20170822134815.77020eb8.cohuck@redhat.com> <20170823002907.GC5379@umbus.fritz.box> <20170823091650.48e7c44e.cohuck@redhat.com> <54526d47-b436-79d5-7a38-9516eaa727a6@redhat.com> <5b0ff74a-08d6-558d-4c79-a93758e6302a@redhat.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <0bb344a3-f8f8-3365-cef1-1c68cf7d160d@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:35:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5b0ff74a-08d6-558d-4c79-a93758e6302a@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] make check speed List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , Cornelia Huck , David Gibson Cc: Peter Maydell , Laurent Vivier , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Richard Henderson , QEMU Developers , =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= , Fam Zheng , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , Cleber Rosa , =?UTF-8?B?THVrw6HFoSBEb2t0b3I=?= On 23.08.2017 10:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 23/08/2017 09:49, Thomas Huth wrote: >> While we're at it: I'd like to have a "make check-fast", too. Sometime= s >> the normal "make check" is already too slow, e.g. while developing new >> patches, I sometimes just want to do a very quick sanity test to see >> whether I broke some basic things or not, and only do the "make check" >> before I submit my patches. >> So we would get three stages: >> >> - make check-fast =3D> For very, very quick sanity tests only >> >> - make check =3D> E.g. has to be run before submitting patches >> >> - make check-harder =3D> might run a very long time, so best suited fo= r >> nightly regression tests etc.? >> >> Does that sound reasonable? And the crucial question: Who is going to >> implement the basic framework for this? >=20 > There's already make check-unit or make check-qtest-x86_64 depending on > what you're working on. True. And I just learned that you can also already set the SPEED variable to either "quick" or "slow" and that we're already using g_test_quick() and g_test_slow() in a couple of places to check this. So the framework for running quick vs. thorough tests is already there ... we just might want to add this to some more tests, I guess... Question for the maintainers and the test automation folks: Is anybody already running "make check SPEED=3Dslow" or is this just rather an unheard-of way of running the tests? > If you have a many-core machine, of course, there's no simpler solution > than throwing more CPUs at it. :) Is it safe nowadays to run "make check -j4" for example? Last time I tried (maybe 1 or 2 years ago), there were still issues since some tests were using hard-coded temporary file names, so the parallel tests were disturbing each other, for example... Thomas