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 E07FFA00C2; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:39:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE9942BB9; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:39:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7B242BAE for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:39:47 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1665045587; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wCB06WiBivFRiObM0golCe1sh2Rq4hLEypwaQuSaeKg=; b=cytU+TlqWoyb7RMSYIFBq4/YhRJXGu+WnBnbnRgAKS/+tYdTuYhJhmHGs7IIgcCwb6s0Hn po5+9md4RVlpYPm3jBcr6Rp5tp/03BDuRonw/ebVKWDMzrQpRkdKybVgFgo5TCG/vaW1HB PGeDp1y/8b3ERCpFjCIurN2jKzHuyqU= 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_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-554-XLE05KJ-OBCWj62HEmKtRQ-1; Thu, 06 Oct 2022 04:39:46 -0400 X-MC-Unique: XLE05KJ-OBCWj62HEmKtRQ-1 Received: by mail-pj1-f72.google.com with SMTP id nl8-20020a17090b384800b00205f930565cso738999pjb.2 for ; Thu, 06 Oct 2022 01:39:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=wCB06WiBivFRiObM0golCe1sh2Rq4hLEypwaQuSaeKg=; b=f04KFc2hmUlWmIfcYn4IKrY/UUVvJCLASKOnT3six7p3jV3UnawQz4VNxt+ylyA/qO GxasMSC34CVXgpAYlGqL6laHMGZSuMgYw463HW2ZaymZODCWQNhSV70jp7WV+oi7SJeH RIaiitFy4Cxd+32taZrX3kY0ag2ujS5ReK0nk9RfdgRmVmRitrl8Q1km9DqaSqc9DDsN saxiXiZeQw2OJ0O5Q31/fy0sFf0ZX3XUXaA0QXJxOHlrpXSQmHaPJeEZWrKRfrxFh3qu Rw7Ev5AM+4vChrN6kxaTivQAHqAyHmZj8tRmTVZ42wOhZYnxMtR/9lK9NajL0TYmvfFU hmoQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2L0FyoDWLrFgkYBEReUfLV4e0EYaqRB0h/6KwB463CqapGVr3Q UTV7Cv18oZYIW2yDp4CI2FQHeWwkOBBGUPsedW3cL6Sayde7YelTy/bXiPxUmQjMPcMc0fmk4SM k+DpYMebuGOTr03jmD6o= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7786:b0:178:48c0:a083 with SMTP id o6-20020a170902778600b0017848c0a083mr3450118pll.125.1665045585540; Thu, 06 Oct 2022 01:39:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4LdZkHiOiEhM+mY1+fxo/1QOU0JjC5aX+biTe1mIf/3XpmEcsO2c7n+Ddk2nq1C1vXVsp9P9U0VjdR30bpJVI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7786:b0:178:48c0:a083 with SMTP id o6-20020a170902778600b0017848c0a083mr3450097pll.125.1665045585261; Thu, 06 Oct 2022 01:39:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221006081729.578475-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> <20221006082813.579255-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20221006082813.579255-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:39:33 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] test/service: fix spurious failures by extending timeout To: Harry van Haaren 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 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 10:28 AM Harry van Haaren 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 > Suggested-by: Mattias Ronnblom > Signed-off-by: Harry van Haaren 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