On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 11:58 PM Alexis Lothoré <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alexei, > > On Wed Oct 22, 2025 at 6:44 PM CEST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:52 AM Alexis Lothoré > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > [...] > > >> A note about test duration: > >> the overall test duration, in my setup (x86 qemu-based setup, running on > >> x86), is around 13s. Reviews on similar series ([1]) shows that such a > >> duration is not really desirable for CI integration. I checked how to > >> reduce it, and it appears that most of it is due to the fact that for each > >> subtest, we verify that if we insert bpf encapsulation (egress) program, > >> and nothing on server side, we properly fail to connect client to server. > >> This test then relies on timeout connection, and I already reduced it as > >> much as possible, but I guess going below the current value (500ms) will > >> just start to make the whole test flaky. > >> > >> I took this "check connection failure" from the original script, and kind > >> of like it for its capacity to detect false negatives, but should I > >> eventually get rid of it ? > > > > I vote to get rid of it. > > I'd rather have test_progs that are quick enough to execute for CI and > > for all developers then more in depth coverage for the corner case. > > ACK. I' ll get rid of it. For the record, I drop down to ~3s in my testing > setup instead of ~13s when removing this "ensure connection failure test".
Good. 3s is fine. > > Note that for the verifier range test we randomize the test coverage, > > since the whole permutation takes hours to run. Instead we randomly > > pick a couple tests and run only those. Since CI runs for every patch > > the overall coverage is good enough. > > Would something like that possible here ? and in the other xsk test? > > I see that test_verifier takes some "to" and "from" indexes, selecting the > range of tests that we are able to run. Is this the mechanism you are > referring to ? (and if so, I guess the rand part is handled by the CI > runner ?) I'm talking about SLOW_TESTS=1 in reg_bounds.c
