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 D7F4EA32A1 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:22:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6FBA1C022; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:22:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F8A1BF9E for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:22:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ua1-f69.google.com (mail-ua1-f69.google.com [209.85.222.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E426D5945B for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:22:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua1-f69.google.com with SMTP id t13so2792757uaj.23 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:22:31 -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=rwfD9v84kXg7Wjl95WkyLT4zEx7bBlaVUflCZrhg7jE=; b=Af8YuqsA8kVVJukru2LxkBkn/FqegI2GWZAN9xGYEOJmjOnkyIewe0kCEG3W1V5uFu pVDscak2QoDadgjGtxxpi50Yig/MjP3jTv5uc23QsLk/GphtNqF+qaj9vHwAJQXM4M+K DQQYvxBb/wdIVQlqCkB/DqZXYx6ATbpn0ES+w+nqslBXEaZe6UmutyxDQvhhCSLHOl6Z h0GmmXZBRF6uoxJOuUpMc6AOuKnBFaA5tgkt2MCzatqG3u+M13h97QeR9se79FZBIgE4 UPjbGxLvYRsXHtQK43cTRDSl8Dwi8gCXXonhuo0VH8tTrj++lSLur+Fju+qXaamAdvAX 5LdA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWCdXGykxxcpo3dBYZmm38RyRd81II0oLc3oGIVrzjeZl5/TPZF uVEeUj0MqVzQeYRXlMm+7rD/QStvwA32RcSautzTCM96TA7FYQPuFnqTkcCjSn4bTnEAeaT57Sg +qcvBeYugFhGuN6gVcno= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:5968:: with SMTP id o37mr8065021uad.53.1571901751028; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:22:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwWLN9Mhb4TVMMYqRkI3etImVxPZXqS4VW29QFfjponjoLdV0yTu5qmhKY5bVmASntqRdUV91A53pGcDH0YwxE= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:5968:: with SMTP id o37mr8065003uad.53.1571901750695; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:22:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1567748973-24192-3-git-send-email-agupta3@marvell.com> <1568362357-18061-1-git-send-email-agupta3@marvell.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:22:19 +0200 Message-ID: To: Amit Gupta Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli , "Wang, Yipeng1" , "Gobriel, Sameh" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , "dev@dpdk.org" , nd , Aaron Conole Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] test/meson: hash lf test moved to dpdk perf testsuite 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 Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 3:16 PM Aaron Conole wrote: > > Amit Gupta writes: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli > >> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 9:17 PM > >> To: Wang, Yipeng1 ; Aaron Conole > >> ; Amit Gupta > >> Cc: Gobriel, Sameh ; Richardson, Bruce > >> ; De Lara Guarch, Pablo > >> ; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli > >> ; nd ; nd > >> Subject: [EXT] RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] test/meson: hash lf test moved > >> to dpdk perf testsuite > >> > >> External Email > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > writes: > >> > > > >> > > > From: Amit Gupta > >> > > > > >> > > > hash_readwrite_lf test always getting TIMEOUT as required time to > >> > > > finish this test was much longer compare to time required for fast > >> > > > tests(10s). Hence, the test is being renamed moved to perf test > >> > > > category for its execution to complete. > >> > > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Gupta > >> > > > --- > >> > > > >> > > Okay. I'll note that we pass the '-t 3' flag, so it is actually > >> > > timing out with 30s instead of the default 10. We do this because > >> > > occasionally the lpm6 and table tests would also exceed the 10s > >> > > timeout in the travis environment. I agree, it's better to pull the > >> > > perf part > >> > of tests out. > >> > > > >> > > I think there isn't any additional functional test in this readwrite - is that > >> so? > >> > > If it is, then we need to also prioritize adding back in some of the > >> > > functional testing. Maybe I misread the lf_autotest, though. > >> > > > >> > [Wang, Yipeng] > >> > Yes that is my concern too, if we just move all the lock-free test > >> > into perf test then we miss the functional test. > >> > Would any of you like to consider adding a small functional test into > >> > the readwrite or readwrite_lf_functional? > >> > That would be great :) > >> Yes, I will take up for readwrite_lf_functional. But, I do not have much > >> bandwidth for 19.11. I suggest we move only part of the tests to perf tests > >> instead for 19.11, this would serve both the purposes. > >> > >> Amit, would it be possible to check what tests will run within the timeout > >> period? > >> > > > @Wang, Yipeng1, is it good if we do the change as @Honnappa > > Nagarahalli suggestion of changing 'hash_readwrite_lf_autotest' to > > 'hash_readwrite_lf_perf_autotest' for the time being and later once > > have sufficient bandwidth we can move only perf part of the test to > > perf tests. > > NAK. > > I don't like that proposal. While it's true that there are occasional > TIMEOUT failures with the current setup, I'd much prefer these timeouts > (which we can easily distinguish) to removing the test from the travis > chain. My understanding is that there *are* some functionality being > exercised by this test that isn't exercised elsewhere. I'd prefer we > don't sacrifice the coverage. +1 and marking this patch as rejected. On a sidenote, Amit, please be careful about the versioning of your patches and update their status in patchwork. I had two patches named the same with one marked as NEW (but no comment on it) and this current thread patch marked as SUPERSEDED. Thanks. -- David Marchand