From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47425) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwDrI-0002dM-0q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:41:33 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwDrH-0003KN-3p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:41:31 -0500 Received: from mail-yk0-x232.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c07::232]:36135) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwDrG-0003K9-TT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:41:31 -0500 Received: by ykdr82 with SMTP id r82so9073357ykd.3 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:41:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2019295173.5692962.1447091414607.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <1447063704-24893-1-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com> <1053612416.5612384.1447081777119.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <2019295173.5692962.1447091414607.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> From: Peter Maydell Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:41:11 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL v2 0/7] Block patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyYy1BbmRyw6kgTHVyZWF1?= Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyYy1BbmRyw6kgTHVyZWF1?= , QEMU Developers , Stefan Hajnoczi On 9 November 2015 at 17:50, Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau wr= ote: > Hi > > ----- Original Message ----- >> On 9 November 2015 at 15:09, Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau = wrote: >> >> On 9 November 2015 at 12:51, Peter Maydell >> >> wrote: >> >> Marc-Andr=C3=A9, can you look into why the ivshmem tests might be >> >> intermittently >> >> failing like this, please? >> > >> > Is this with an slow or emulated host? It could be that the 5s timeout >> > is not enough? >> >> This is with the 32-bit build on a 64-bit ARM server box. So it's >> not the fastest machine in the world, but it's not bad either. >> It will be using TCG, obviously. >> >> A test which takes 5 seconds to run isn't ideal from a "keep >> the make-check time down" perspective either. > > I can imagine a test starting a server thread and 2 qemu instances would = take more than 5s on such configuration then. > > Could you try timing the test a few times to confirm this? petmay01@moonshot-dsg-11:~/qemu/build/all-a64$ time QTEST_QEMU_BINARY=3Di386-softmmu/qemu-system-i386 QTEST_QEMU_IMG=3Dqemu-img MALLOC_PERTURB_=3D${MALLOC_PERTURB_:-$((RANDOM % 255 + 1))} gtester -k --verbose -m=3Dquick tests/ivshmem-test TEST: tests/ivshmem-test... (pid=3D10893) /i386/ivshmem/single: OK /i386/ivshmem/pair: OK /i386/ivshmem/server: OK /i386/ivshmem/hotplug: OK /i386/ivshmem/memdev: OK PASS: tests/ivshmem-test real 0m11.945s user 0m11.020s sys 0m0.310s (almost all of the runtime seems to be in the "pair" subtest). thanks -- PMM