From: "Mattias Rönnblom" <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"dpdklab@iol.unh.edu" <dpdklab@iol.unh.edu>,
"ci@dpdk.org" <ci@dpdk.org>,
"Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com" <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
"mb@smartsharesystems.com" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] test/service: fix spurious failures by extending timeout
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:54:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <942c0bef-7401-10a3-ee72-f270e5466936@ericsson.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8yMQi4Ra6rz=jLbHQK66qB5HeORQe-3x8+O9MNPxajVVQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2022-10-06 10:39, David Marchand wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 10:28 AM Harry van Haaren
> <harry.van.haaren@intel.com> 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 <david.marchand@redhat.com>
>> Suggested-by: Mattias Ronnblom <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
>
> Just to be sure, do we want such a timeout in the test logic itself?
I think it depends on how quickly you want to produce a failure, and
also if there are some follow-up tests in the same autotest that you
want to proceed with, regardless of the outcome.
> 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.
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-06 8:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-06 8:17 [PATCH] " Harry van Haaren
2022-10-06 8:28 ` [PATCH v2] " Harry van Haaren
2022-10-06 8:39 ` David Marchand
2022-10-06 8:54 ` Mattias Rönnblom [this message]
2022-10-06 8:37 ` [PATCH] " Mattias Rönnblom
2022-10-06 12:52 ` [PATCH v3] " Harry van Haaren
2022-10-06 13:27 ` Morten Brørup
2022-10-06 19:33 ` David Marchand
2023-01-26 9:29 ` David Marchand
2023-01-31 17:24 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2023-02-03 15:03 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2023-02-03 15:12 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-02-23 20:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-27 8:41 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2023-02-03 15:16 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-03 16:09 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2023-02-23 20:15 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-02-27 8:41 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2022-10-06 14:00 ` Mattias Rönnblom
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=942c0bef-7401-10a3-ee72-f270e5466936@ericsson.com \
--to=mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=ci@dpdk.org \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=dpdklab@iol.unh.edu \
--cc=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).