Re: "make check-acceptance" takes way too long

["Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>]

Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 11:20 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 11:01:43AM -0500, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 6:25 AM Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > We have up to now tried really hard as a project to avoid building and
>> > > hosting our own binaries to avoid theoretical* GPL compliance issues.
>> > > This is why we've ended up relying so much on distros to build and host
>> > > binaries we can use. Most QEMU developers have their own personal zoo of
>> > > kernels and userspaces which they use for testing. I use custom kernels
>> > > with a buildroot user space in initramfs for example. We even use the
>> > > qemu advent calendar for a number of our avocado tests but we basically
>> > > push responsibility for GPL compliance to the individual developers in
>> > > that case.
>> > >
>> > > *theoretical in so far I suspect most people would be happy with a
>> > > reference to an upstream repo/commit and .config even if that is not to
>> > > the letter of the "offer of source code" required for true compliance.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Yes, it'd be fine (great, really!) if a lightweight distro (or
>> > kernels/initrd) were to
>> > be maintained and identified as an "official" QEMU pick.  Putting the binaries
>> > in the source tree though, brings all sorts of compliance issues.
>>
>> All that's really needed is to have the source + build recipes
>> in a separate git repo. A pipeline can build them periodically
>> and publish artifacts, which QEMU can then consume in its pipeline.
>>
>
> I get your point, but then to acquire the artifacts one needs to:
>
> 1. depend on the CI system to deploy the artifacts in subsequent job
> stages (a limitation IMO), OR
> 2. if outside the CI, implement a download/cache mechanism for those
> artifacts, which gets us back to the previous point, only with a
> different distro/kernel+initrd.
>
> With that, the value proposal has to be in the characteristics of
> distro/kernel+initrd itself. It has to have enough differentiation to
> justify the development/maintenance work, as opposed to using existing
> ones.
>
> FWIW, my non-scientific tests booting on my 3+ YO machine:
>
> * CirrOS x86_64+KVM: ~2 seconds
> * CirroOS aarch64+TCG: ~20 seconds
> * Fedora kernel+initrd aarch64+TCG
> (tests/avocado/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_aarch64_virt):
> ~1 second
>
> I would imagine that CirrOS aarch64+KVM on an adequate system would be
> similar to the CirrOS x86_64+KVM.  We can develop/maintain a slimmer
> distro, and/or set the default test workloads where they perform the
> best.  The development cost of the latter is quite small.  I've added
> a missing bit to the filtering capabilities in Avocado[1] and will
> send a proposal to QEMU along these lines.

FWIW the bit I'm interested in for the slow test in question here is
that it does a full boot through the EDK2 bios (EL3->EL2->EL1). I'm not
overly concerned about what gets run in userspace as long as something
is run that shows EL0 can be executed and handle task switching. I
suspect most of the userspace startup of a full distro basically just
ends up testing the same code paths over and over again.

>
> Regards,
> - Cleber.
>
> [1] https://github.com/avocado-framework/avocado/pull/5245


-- 
Alex Bennée