From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
To: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, dpdklab@iol.unh.edu, ci@dpdk.org,
Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, mb@smartsharesystems.com,
mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com, thomas@monjalon.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] test/service: fix spurious failures by extending timeout
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:39:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJFAV8yMQi4Ra6rz=jLbHQK66qB5HeORQe-3x8+O9MNPxajVVQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221006082813.579255-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 10:28 AM Harry van Haaren
<harry.van.haaren@intel.com> wrote:
>
> This commit extends the timeout for service_may_be_active()
> from 100ms to 1000ms. Local testing on a idle and loaded system
> (compiling DPDK with all cores) always completes after 1 ms.
>
> The wait time for a service-lcore to finish is also extended
> from 100ms to 1000ms.
>
> The same timeout waiting code was duplicated in two tests, and
> is now refactored to a standalone function avoiding duplication.
>
> Reported-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Mattias Ronnblom <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
> Signed-off-by: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
Just to be sure, do we want such a timeout in the test logic itself?
Is it that you want to make sure that the synchronisation happens in a
"reasonable" (subject to discussion ;-)) amount of time?
Otherwise, the unit tests run in the CI are themselves subject to a
10s x mutiplier timeout (-t meson test option).
And then I would rely on this overall timeout.
--
David Marchand
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-06 8:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-06 8:17 [PATCH] " Harry van Haaren
2022-10-06 8:28 ` [PATCH v2] " Harry van Haaren
2022-10-06 8:39 ` David Marchand [this message]
2022-10-06 8:54 ` Mattias Rönnblom
2022-10-06 8:37 ` [PATCH] " Mattias Rönnblom
2022-10-06 12:52 ` [PATCH v3] " Harry van Haaren
2022-10-06 13:27 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-06 19:33 ` David Marchand
2023-01-26 9:29 ` David Marchand
2023-01-31 17:24 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2023-02-03 15:03 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2023-02-03 15:12 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-02-23 20:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-27 8:41 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2023-02-03 15:16 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-03 16:09 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2023-02-23 20:15 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-27 8:41 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2022-10-06 14:00 ` Mattias Rönnblom
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='CAJFAV8yMQi4Ra6rz=jLbHQK66qB5HeORQe-3x8+O9MNPxajVVQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=ci@dpdk.org \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=dpdklab@iol.unh.edu \
--cc=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).