From: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com, dpdklab@iol.unh.edu, ci@dpdk.org,
Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com,
mb@smartsharesystems.com, roretzla@linux.microsoft.com,
aconole@redhat.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com,
Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH] service: split tests to perf and autotest to avoid spurious CI failures
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:36:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230224173637.243266-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> (raw)
On some CI runs, some service-cores tests spuriously fail as the
service lcore thread is not actually scheduled by the OS in the
given amount of time.
Increasing timeouts has not resolved the issue in the CI, so the
solution in this patch is to move them to a separate perf test
suite.
Signed-off-by: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
---
See DPDK ML discussion in this thread:
http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-February/263523.html
---
app/test/meson.build | 1 +
app/test/test_service_cores.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test/meson.build b/app/test/meson.build
index f34d19e3c3..2db5ccf4ff 100644
--- a/app/test/meson.build
+++ b/app/test/meson.build
@@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ perf_test_names = [
'pie_perf',
'distributor_perf_autotest',
'pmd_perf_autotest',
+ 'service_perf_autotest',
'stack_perf_autotest',
'stack_lf_perf_autotest',
'rand_perf_autotest',
diff --git a/app/test/test_service_cores.c b/app/test/test_service_cores.c
index 637fcd7cf9..06653dfdef 100644
--- a/app/test/test_service_cores.c
+++ b/app/test/test_service_cores.c
@@ -1022,17 +1022,12 @@ static struct unit_test_suite service_tests = {
TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_name),
TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_get_by_name),
TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_dump),
- TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_attr_get),
- TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_lcore_attr_get),
TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_probe_capability),
TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_start_stop),
TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_lcore_add_del),
- TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_lcore_start_stop),
TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_lcore_en_dis_able),
TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_mt_unsafe_poll),
TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_mt_safe_poll),
- TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_app_lcore_mt_safe),
- TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_app_lcore_mt_unsafe),
TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_may_be_active),
TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_active_two_cores),
TEST_CASES_END() /**< NULL terminate unit test array */
@@ -1046,3 +1041,30 @@ test_service_common(void)
}
REGISTER_TEST_COMMAND(service_autotest, test_service_common);
+
+
+/* The tests below have been split from the auto-test suite, as the
+ * when they are run in a cloud CI environment they can give false-positive
+ * errors, due to the service-cores not being scheduled by the OS.
+ */
+static struct unit_test_suite service_perf_tests = {
+ .suite_name = "service core test suite",
+ .setup = testsuite_setup,
+ .teardown = testsuite_teardown,
+ .unit_test_cases = {
+ TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_attr_get),
+ TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_lcore_attr_get),
+ TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_lcore_start_stop),
+ TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_app_lcore_mt_safe),
+ TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_app_lcore_mt_unsafe),
+ TEST_CASES_END() /**< NULL terminate unit test array */
+ }
+};
+
+static int
+test_service_perf(void)
+{
+ return unit_test_suite_runner(&service_perf_tests);
+}
+
+REGISTER_TEST_COMMAND(service_perf_autotest, test_service_perf);
--
2.34.1
next reply other threads:[~2023-02-24 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-24 17:36 Harry van Haaren [this message]
2023-02-27 16:08 ` David Marchand
2023-03-03 8:37 ` David Marchand
2023-03-03 10:59 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2023-03-07 13:48 ` David Marchand
2023-03-03 13:00 ` [PATCH v2] " Harry van Haaren
2023-03-07 13:48 ` David Marchand
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=20230224173637.243266-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--to=harry.van.haaren@intel.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=aconole@redhat.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=ci@dpdk.org \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=dpdklab@iol.unh.edu \
--cc=mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
/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).