Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] test/meson: hash lf test moved to dpdk perf testsuite

[Amit Gupta <agupta3@marvell.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 9:17 PM
> To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Aaron Conole
> <aconole@redhat.com>; Amit Gupta <agupta3@marvell.com>
> Cc: Gobriel, Sameh <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: [EXT] RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] test/meson: hash lf test moved
> to dpdk perf testsuite
> 
> External Email
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> <snip>
> 
> > >
> > > <agupta3@marvell.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > From: Amit Gupta <agupta3@marvell.com>
> > > >
> > > > 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 <agupta3@marvell.com>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
Not even a single subtest of hash_readwrite_lf runs within the timeout period of 10s. 
generate_key logic itself is taking ~8s to generate all required keys.