Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] RISC-V: ACPI: Namespace updates

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 03:50:10PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:51:04 +0100
> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 02:43:19PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Mon,  8 Jul 2024 17:17:32 +0530
> > > Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > This series adds few updates to RISC-V ACPI namespace for virt platform.
> > > > Additionally, it has patches to enable ACPI table testing for RISC-V.
> > > > 
> > > > 1) PCI Link devices need to be created outside the scope of the PCI root
> > > > complex to ensure correct probe ordering by the OS. This matches the
> > > > example given in ACPI spec as well.
> > > > 
> > > > 2) Add PLIC and APLIC as platform devices as well to ensure probing
> > > > order as per BRS spec [1] requirement.
> > > > 
> > > > 3) BRS spec requires RISC-V to use new ACPI ID for the generic UART. So,
> > > > update the HID of the UART.
> > > > 
> > > > 4) Enabled ACPI tables tests for RISC-V which were originally part of
> > > > [2] but couldn't get merged due to updates required in the expected AML
> > > > files. I think combining those patches with this series makes it easier
> > > > to merge since expected AML files are updated.
> > > > 
> > > > [1] - https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-brs
> > > > [2] - https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2024-06/msg04734.html  
> > > 
> > > btw: CI is not happy about series, see:
> > >  https://gitlab.com/imammedo/qemu/-/pipelines/1371119552
> > > also 'cross-i686-tci' job routinely timeouts on bios-tables-test
> > > but we still keep adding more tests to it.
> > > We should either bump timeout to account for slowness or
> > > disable bios-tables-test for that job.  
> > 
> > Asumming the test is functionally correct, and not hanging, then bumping
> > the timeout is the right answer. You can do this in the meson.build
> > file
> 
> I think test is fine, since once in a while it passes (I guess it depends on runner host/load)
> 
> Overal job timeout is 1h, but that's not what fails.
> What I see is, the test aborts after 10min timeout.
> it's likely we hit boot_sector_test()/acpi_find_rsdp_address_uefi() timeout.
> That's what we should try to bump.
> 
> PS:
> I've just started the job with 5min bump, lets see if it is enough.

Because we should wait for 5min CPU time, not wall time.
Why don't we do that?
Something like getrusage should work I think.



> > We should never disable tests only in CI, because non-CI users
> > are just as likely to hit timeouts.
> > 
> > 
> > With regards,
> > Daniel