From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BDBA0559; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:45:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC22292D; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:45:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com [63.128.21.74]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1E225D9 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:44:59 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1584441899; 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=QdYmscbb98owHwsFpo9mN1AQWMZPXc5u99Gc3DKpfeI=; b=ZykrsLQj2g1B0O+SrYTQU93j/fwteOVJK/VYnjEvg8bM9sDOE23obEFmlaZ3fTjlwQ8TsH r/pWQE25jO2krBE5Ytcwi0euykiwX7gcFR6foO31+3BXOFFIFmMKKx7QPBUHqr2MNhakEq FdSJbbVReBOq+DdCsMfu9gP6GCG/Kfk= Received: from mail-vs1-f70.google.com (mail-vs1-f70.google.com [209.85.217.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-324-0FYa0XL3M5itPvPrU7hY3w-1; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 06:44:55 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 0FYa0XL3M5itPvPrU7hY3w-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f70.google.com with SMTP id c62so843096vsc.21 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 03:44:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qhFDEF+HPDTh9JRbivU2fm1ustQSKyJFEjr/t6nt2Lc=; b=RzeKE/lnCD/IEkOM7hYiMos6ZUg1QSMxry8VaCzxCxTqaoKWDuhZsBR8iuH0zvFFzk ufVwK/2D2HZ1EWajuAvUa/E2p3E73lTfl1moiLkKLviWjjduAMeyNr8TTjp6/kobumr6 zxI05SdCupKGdpoabzgaAsjn9OWWMpDGMpnkEBFHV9etsdlm9s9ijYQVqQwNjqiWypfW aClC7ieoGLP6ZpmiBJ+vPDJhnB4tIuHeu+z8sH7IBUYmWKllgeIPPG3+TwuQk537QtEp fKxoezXYO9iSKmcAox89KePzqAahgMTBbuRRobURu8WMvbqaY3HorsaH3cR5Wma8GSM6 yg1w== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0TZR1/RuPVaF1mQT5hM6KMTUP7nC5vcE6ni3R5L3LHP4Z7pBd9 ejTL8zd2KBUWdIccxRpoq04La/cH6epeAWcYcFDFArrGJdLDlb6aBGoKDhtPdE7tTaHT0af90E1 iMIlFbUQkQTkktx1Vwng= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6796:: with SMTP id v22mr2968734uar.41.1584441895288; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 03:44:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsCsl9ySB3MnNAPB/4h5hNAjMXc3Dy7dnGdau8FS2Pb/duEk+yHA9Srlih+O4d+xfGTXCoWnXFthiGFTPEf0y4= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6796:: with SMTP id v22mr2968721uar.41.1584441895036; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 03:44:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200316170921.6020-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:44:44 +0100 Message-ID: To: Aaron Conole Cc: Bruce Richardson , dev , "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" , Thomas Monjalon X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] ci: reduce examples built for static builds X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 6:53 PM Aaron Conole wrote: > > Bruce Richardson writes: > > > Static builds can take a lot of space, so reduce the number of examples > > built when doing those static builds. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson > > --- > > It looks good to me. I'll try a run with Ruifeng's no-huge series and > see if I can trigger errors on my side (and then see what happens with > the cache sizes, too). Might take some time as I adjust some things > here. - The disk quota issue was reproduced on master without Ruifeng patches: https://travis-ci.com/github/DPDK/dpdk/jobs/298584616 https://travis-ci.com/github/DPDK/dpdk/jobs/298858638 And for this, the cache is not really big. cache-arm64-linux-bionic-a550182015679db90d1e0a2460464d106712e1c2c29f3efc7d= b1dc1b6fd86ebb--compiler-gcc.tgz last modified: 2020-03-16 11:28:59 size: 160.84 MiB I remember bigger caches in the past. I deleted this job cache and restarted the first job, and it passed. Restarted again, and then it failed o_O. - So I went and restarted a couple of times both of those jobs (leaving the cache as is, which now contains 60MB of data). I get random failures. It does not seem to depend on the system: it failed once on f432ae31-ccac-4caa-92ca-8156fabad86f@6138.lxd-arm64-02-com, then worked later. hostname: f432ae31-ccac-4caa-92ca-8156fabad86f@6138.lxd-arm64-02-com: KO hostname: edb47637-c344-4a03-8538-711046469ad4@14975.lxd-arm64-01-com: ok hostname: 386fc0aa-a84a-4a77-b2bd-e1e754bfe51d@14975.lxd-arm64-01-com: ok hostname: 43c67d46-c94c-498a-816f-2eddce2a58a6@14975.lxd-arm64-01-com: ok hostname: f432ae31-ccac-4caa-92ca-8156fabad86f@6138.lxd-arm64-02-com: ok hostname: a59a18bb-6f7f-4c0f-bb98-a8075cb61063@6138.lxd-arm64-02-com: KO hostname: 743ab211-a1ba-480e-be85-2b1c01ce8b86@14975.lxd-arm64-01-com: ok hostname: 8ac56afe-df63-464a-8c85-9b2e8b141b94@25560.lxd-arm64-03-com: ok hostname: 306788d5-7614-4e9d-856a-1043cb4aeaf4@6138.lxd-arm64-02-com: KO hostname: b6c5307c-7e65-4feb-a46a-7e2bc9a17fb8@6138.lxd-arm64-02-com: ok --=20 David Marchand