On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 3:16 PM Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Amit Gupta <agup...@marvell.com> writes: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> > >> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 9:17 PM > >> To: Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.w...@intel.com>; Aaron Conole > >> <acon...@redhat.com>; Amit Gupta <agup...@marvell.com> > >> Cc: Gobriel, Sameh <sameh.gobr...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce > >> <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo > >> <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli > >> <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com> > >> Subject: [EXT] RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] test/meson: hash lf test moved > >> to dpdk perf testsuite > >> > >> External Email > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> <snip> > >> > >> > > > >> > > <agup...@marvell.com> writes: > >> > > > >> > > > From: Amit Gupta <agup...@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 <agup...@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? > >> > > > @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
