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 629B4A0487 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:17:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCDD5B3A; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:17:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1D4559A; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:17:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D6C35AFE3; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:17:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com (ovpn-120-240.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.240]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4293919C77; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:17:46 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: msantana@redhat.com, David Marchand , dev@dpdk.org, ci@dpdk.org References: <1559638792-8608-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> <81c5f665-97ac-c4d0-8281-8f195c63195e@redhat.com> <2134880.WhL1dmy7PZ@xps> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 08:17:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <2134880.WhL1dmy7PZ@xps> (Thomas Monjalon's message of "Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:34:18 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Mon, 01 Jul 2019 12:17:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 00/14] Unit tests fixes for CI X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" Thomas Monjalon writes: > 04/06/2019 17:49, Michael Santana Francisco: >> On 6/4/19 4:59 AM, David Marchand wrote: >> > - the "perf" tests are taking way too long for my taste, +1 here. >> >> We should still fix them. However I don't know if we should be running >> the perf test for every job and every patch on travis. It takes too >> long. The travis queue will be delayed too far behind for it to be of >> any use. >> >> OTOH we could have one job as part of the travis build dedicated to >> running tests (or just perf test). It's still time consuming but better >> than running the test on every travis job. For this to work we would >> need to decreased the timeout for the perf tests as the timeout for it >> and the travis are both 10 minutes > > +Cc ci@dpdk.org > > I don't think we should run the perf tests in basic CI like Travis. > We can run perf tests if the purpose is to compare the performance > with previous releases, as some other tests in the community lab. +1 - some of the perf tests aren't going to complete in any sort of reasonable time. While we could claim it's a separate problem, we should also not enable something that will make the travis runs so much longer. I do like the idea of running tests in the travis build, and I think it would make sense to have just a single job for it (or maybe one for clang and one for gcc? maybe even that is overkill). I would rather not do performance tests during the travis run, though. It doesn't really make sense. Travis isn't any kind of an 'optimized' environment, so I don't know what 'performance' should mean.