From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41357) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtCFz-0003YW-Av for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 04:18:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtC52-0007tV-T2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 04:07:26 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35736) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtC52-0007tH-LJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 04:06:40 -0500 Message-ID: <5474469A.1050009@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:06:34 +0100 From: Max Reitz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1414478736-30064-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <87lho0vbqu.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <87zjbfrb32.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> In-Reply-To: <87zjbfrb32.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] tests: Add check-block to "make check" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster , Fam Zheng Cc: Kevin Wolf , Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= On 2014-11-25 at 08:30, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Markus Armbruster writes: > >> Fam Zheng writes: >> >>> qemu-iotests contains useful tests that have a nice coverage of block layer >>> code. Adding check-block (which calls tests/qemu-iotests-quick.sh) to "make >>> check" is good for developers' self-testing. >>> >>> With the first patch, this set takes a half minute on my laptop. If >>> "-j" option >>> is used, it only takes a few more seconds than what we have now. >> Different data point: elderly machine, spinning rust, /tmp is tmpfs, no >> -j: elapsed time increases from ~2 to ~3 minutes. > I'm very much in favour of actually running the tests we have. > > Running all the block tests for all the formats would be too slow, and > that's why you run just the "quick" group, and only for qcow2. Quick > enough? > > Any ideas on speeding it up further? Trimming image sizes, perhaps? > > What are the slowest tests in the quick group? Why are they slow? How > are tests selected for the quick group anyway? Last time I updated the associations it was "Whatever runs in under five seconds on my HDD". Max