From: "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tests/qtest: Don't parallelize migration-test
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 16:23:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87cylcyhp3.fsf@draig.linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240909133921.1141067-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org> (Peter Maydell's message of "Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:39:21 +0100")
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
> The migration-test is a long-running test whose subtests all launch
> at least two QEMU processes. This means that if for example the host
> has 4 CPUs then 'make check' defaults to a parallelism of 5, and if
> we launch 5 migration-tests in parallel then we will be running 10
> QEMU instances on a 4 CPU system. If the system is not very fast
> then the test can spuriously time out because the different tests are
> all stealing CPU from each other. This seems to particularly be a
> problem on our S390 CI job and the cross-i686-tci CI job.
>
> Force meson to run migration-test non-parallel, so there is never any
> other test running at the same time as it. This will slow down
> overall test execution time somewhat, but hopefully make our CI less
> flaky.
>
> The downside is that because each migration-test instance runs for
> between 2 and 5 minutes and we run it for five architectures this
> significantly increases the runtime. For an all-architectures build
> on my local machine 'make check -j8' goes from
>
> real 8m19.127s
> user 31m47.534s
> sys 19m42.650s
>
> to
>
> real 20m31.218s
> user 32m48.712s
> sys 19m52.133s
>
> more than doubling the wallclock runtime.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> ---
> Also, looking at these figures we spend a *lot* of our overall
> 'make check' time on migration-test. Do we really need to do
> that much for every architecture?
I guess one question is are we getting value from all the extra
migration tests? There certainly seem to be some sub-tests that are
slower than the others and I assume testing a small delta on the tests
before it.
On s390x it seems the native test runs pretty much to the same time as
the other TCG guests. Do we exercise any extra migration code by running
tests for every architecture as opposed to one KVM/native hyp and one
TCG one?
--
Alex Bennée
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-09 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-09 13:39 [RFC PATCH] tests/qtest: Don't parallelize migration-test Peter Maydell
2024-09-09 15:23 ` Alex Bennée [this message]
2024-09-09 15:34 ` Peter Maydell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87cylcyhp3.fsf@draig.linaro.org \
--to=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).