From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>,
Amit Gupta <agupta3@marvell.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Michael Santana <maicolgabriel@hotmail.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>,
david.marchand@redhat.com, yipeng1.wang@intel.com,
honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ci: increase unit test timeout
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:03:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <36007098.10thIPus4b@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f7tlfprl2v7.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com>
28/01/2020 21:53, Aaron Conole:
> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> writes:
>
> > Timeout multiplier was 3, which gives 30 seconds for unit test but still
> > some unit test was timing out time to time and travis reporting false
> > positive failures.
> >
> > Increasing the multiplier to 10, which makes timeout duration
> > 100seconds.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > ---
>
> It's okay to me. I thought there was an effort to split out performance
> part of this test from the functional part, but that seems to not have
> gone anywhere.
>
> Acked-by: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
NACK
The fix should be to split perf tests out of fast-tests.
The following patch is splitting hash_readwrite_autotest:
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/58726/
But we are still waiting for a patch splitting hash_readwrite_lf_autotest.
Please consider working on unit tests as a HIGH PRIORITY (using uppercase ;).
We should not have to wait so long to see performance tests removed
from fast unit tests (while keeping the functional coverage).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-30 11:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-28 16:28 Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-28 18:39 ` Michael Santana
2020-01-28 20:53 ` Aaron Conole
2020-01-30 11:03 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2020-01-30 15:35 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-01-31 15:44 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2020-02-05 18:47 ` David Marchand
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=36007098.10thIPus4b@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=aconole@redhat.com \
--cc=agupta3@marvell.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=maicolgabriel@hotmail.com \
--cc=yipeng1.wang@intel.com \
/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).