From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D0041E06 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:49:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47BF240EDB; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:49:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281494067B for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:49:00 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1678196939; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wqlgIlvHtpjwzPJBzlomBdowia7h47R7DTUaqZlYXt4=; b=DoJ9md2jnpoDMJH00ppawxuUnLlcJ5uSSDjN/FZRpi7oHJ5uLko4WXI/sVCWPhbUIp1hB3 ArD1OrI8JtmE8YA+OHCZDU3oAdDilr7Tj8+Foco4+Aegz02rKgldrGzQKRakMORXwniLoj omVUxm7CMl51fHKcSG8w3bi6lSb/Qqg= Received: from mail-pj1-f72.google.com (mail-pj1-f72.google.com [209.85.216.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-449-ki_cziI2NKCSM-6CTgBTOA-1; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 08:48:58 -0500 X-MC-Unique: ki_cziI2NKCSM-6CTgBTOA-1 Received: by mail-pj1-f72.google.com with SMTP id p9-20020a17090a930900b00237a7f862dfso8112745pjo.2 for ; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:48:58 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678196937; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=wqlgIlvHtpjwzPJBzlomBdowia7h47R7DTUaqZlYXt4=; b=E97JTVQOpbDhYqjoDG4di4u5x+voawHrilB81mY8waEgIYnXP6HTuveGajuCjUEjzM h0Y1fVbRLhS6n8mVsFVr3bBpy8mZbIC6/NiQeRjTeUssSYoeaSPIJJFGu8Heocu5A9ck nqqHafZYrHgGGkAoSWd6MxP0l6yKleaTDJIqVV7+JwWHtb65LcBzI0YIh/IdohJkzmrd KWTxFQDEn8EsRMSd8gApfBAzqgWeuYxsnRpQVo2MMTt0yhIlVcJvbtG37cMAw/c9vANW IkXWo2ru0b858p0byssIaDzb1qXrICMb7sgVLItHe9Zu9oKzpjC0L5xroNmyL7aJj6su ozZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWeXKsmyLyQ+ECpcADdKQB5b5JY5Frdbp8+3OEKFg1qs933SYWG CqcVvOB2ydNHP6s59R0Xm/OsnTNSTsBiYROV882HS7xF7EUXKsUQfGIheVVTfcGg4rrn+StSEjD bNQolYifaM59zEVaDMw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:2dcd:b0:237:64dc:5acd with SMTP id q13-20020a17090a2dcd00b0023764dc5acdmr5455802pjm.7.1678196937426; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:48:57 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/ISVRyoMgS9qoApNXxR9vGFgo41geszl7Z6boFECSXehwY4BOHNzf9fG9WILWh55YR0VJktQqhSPH1gC5CYLA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:2dcd:b0:237:64dc:5acd with SMTP id q13-20020a17090a2dcd00b0023764dc5acdmr5455789pjm.7.1678196937115; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:48:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230224173637.243266-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:48:46 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] service: split tests to perf and autotest to avoid spurious CI failures To: "Van Haaren, Harry" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "dpdklab@iol.unh.edu" , "ci@dpdk.org" , "Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com" , "mattias.ronnblom" , "mb@smartsharesystems.com" , "roretzla@linux.microsoft.com" , "aconole@redhat.com" , "Richardson, Bruce" X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 11:59=E2=80=AFAM Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > > + .setup =3D testsuite_setup, > > > + .teardown =3D testsuite_teardown, > > > + .unit_test_cases =3D { > > > + TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_attr_get), > > > + TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_lcore_attr= _get), > > > + TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_lcore_star= t_stop), > > > > Looking at service_lcore_running_check(), don't you think > > service_may_be_active() and service_active_two_cores() are also > > subject to race? > > Perhaps, but those haven't *actually* been failing in any of the reports. > I'd prefer leave tests running if they're not causing issues in the CI. service_may_be_active did fail in the near past (report from October that triggered the discussion and the timeout extension patch). So my fear is that we will see some ocurrences. Time will tell. --=20 David Marchand