From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44263A0524; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:03:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB4C1BFF8; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:03:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C691BFE6 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:03:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C787F21470; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 06:03:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 06:03:08 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=JoHa60cX6UL4i+WrfnIomz1fgmg36f4SAdWHaY3j7ng=; b=NcfK5azk3usH H27AYsnVT3VCAZnvPdGsOFt9XzxcsDbcii4Oq2e2V0c8tEupu4RGJxfjGyuJaouZ iDM0U2kLgkG0r3j0HWaX7w0Tu5lc5w6x6c/TgaI0q+w5SkbFyhcZCKAp6AfCYtbY 8c827Lxi4shG2WQomr1CP3PqL0xNz8s= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=JoHa60cX6UL4i+WrfnIomz1fgmg36f4SAdWHaY3j7 ng=; b=OsLtm5vC6I8TZHSDwANQ18X1z7OzbReE9bGB8hG5EvMll52I+FgfTsYt/ V8IFKlwxTTFe2fdcvYMAI93Re4w75DPjdzx+CEyWyVQJq44ruYFWd5xhbeUHRhaO 2PS5uMuQ/jFQnfCoH+YMTLr7vJrd4pk7ETWEM0i2gezu/mAhX2KhUq5DwqZVeE1c gbBU1gqRTULBCDJ/bPPiUpqasC/jzNpAMcT1fWOzVCIMxeib/fAFM1AV4/KP1gER xjXb8f+o6nl1ZN9vVrobp2r8iQv+DQfYC0GY+l76JoZhtb+DMN4EEpmZV5C5FGoH GLylBsPDImD4VzrT79JDHOjbK1zWw== X-ME-Sender: <xms:7LcyXjwb3c7IO3CcP-piGI6Cjk6VRyV5ClaBX80xyi2hUfnclJpl6A> X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrfeekgddvgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucffoh hmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecukfhppeekiedrvddufedrvdehuddrudeftdenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrsh esmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:7LcyXo1cMMkXH1HhZot02pLzCbBlABiQ8kgmsh9OpC3EztrZ0Xafyw> <xmx:7LcyXjyEaUP0my4Z_CYCCDEQTPv1mBjToQ__g9a-fqIVZST140I3yw> <xmx:7LcyXvEJwLeZnN_GBd82yGDSIJEQPMYYulCc3wJHaQYpjwDQQBR7eg> <xmx:7LcyXi1C6xLjdzj8s_pPTKROaV-wAdePq4OKSJg75Cc28Xz-rB0Q1g> Received: from xps.localnet (lfbn-bor-1-555-130.w86-213.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.213.251.130]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F0B0F3280067; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 06:03:06 -0500 (EST) 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 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:03:05 +0100 Message-ID: <36007098.10thIPus4b@xps> In-Reply-To: <f7tlfprl2v7.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com> References: <20200128162854.3367823-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <f7tlfprl2v7.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ci: increase unit test timeout X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> 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).