On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:45 AM, Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 at 18:40, Davide Italiano <dccitali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Greg Clayton <clayb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > It would be great to look into these and see what is taking so long.
>> > Some tests are doing way too much work and should be split up. But it would
>> > be great to see if we have any tests that are not good tests and are just
>> > taking too much time for no reason (like the watchpoint tests were that
>> > Pavel fixed).
>> >
>> I tend to agree with you. This is important. Pavel, is there a
>> systematic way you use to profile test cases?
>> Maybe we should consider having a testsuite mode where we warn for
>> slow tests (or revamp the profiling mechanism, if there's one).
>> Thanks!
> I don't have any fancy mechanism for profiling this. I just hacked the
> process_file function in dosep.py to measure the time each test takes and
> report it if it exceeds a certain threshold. Then I just looked at the tests
> that seemed like they are taking more time than they ought to.
> This is the patch, in it's entirety:
> --- a/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dosep.py
> +++ b/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dosep.py
> @@ -489,8 +489,13 @@ def process_file(test_file, dotest_argv,
> inferior_pid_events):
>          timeout = (os.getenv("LLDB_%s_TIMEOUT" % timeout_name) or
>                     getDefaultTimeout(dotest_options.lldb_platform_name))
> +        import time
> +        t = time.time()
>          results.append(call_with_timeout(
>              command, timeout, base_name, inferior_pid_events, test_file))
> +        t = time.time() - t
> +        if t > 20:
> +            print("XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                           %s:
> %f"%(base_name, t))
>      # result = (name, status, passes, failures, unexpected_successes)
>      timed_out = [name for name, status, _, _, _ in results
> We could try to make this more fancy, but I'm not sure worth it. It just
> occurred to me you can achieve a similar effect by running the test suite
> with a reduced timeout threshold. Something like "LLDB_TEST_TIMEOUT=20s
> ninja check-lldb" should do the trick. At one point Todd also implemented a
> mechanism for recording what the test is doing before we time out and kill
> it. The idea was that this would help us determine what the test was doing
> when it was killed (and whether it was really stuck, or just slow). However,
> I've never used this, so I have no idea what's the state of it.
> I am not opposed to raising the timeout threshold, but before we do that, we
> should check whether it will actually help. I.e., whether the test is just
> slow, or it sometimes hangs (I think TestMultithreaded is a good candidate
> for the latter). Can you check what is the time those tests take to run
> individually? Current osx timeout (dosep.py:getDefaultTimeout) is set to 6
> minutes, so if the tests normally take much shorter than this (less than 2
> minutes?), I think there is something else going on, and increasing the
> timeout will not help.
> Another interesting thing may be to check the system load while running the
> test suite. Nowadays, lldb will sometimes spawn N (where N is the number of
> cpus) threads to do debug info parsing, so when we run N tests in parallel,
> we may end up with N^2 threads competing for N cpus. I've never seen this to
> be an issue as our tests generally don't have that much debug info to begin
> with, but I don't think we've ever investigated this either...
> BTW: This is my list of tests that take over 20 seconds (I ran it on linux
> so it does not include any osx-specific ones):
> 20.729438 TestWatchpointCommands.py
> 21.158373 TestMiData.py
> 22.018853 TestRecursiveInferior.py
> 22.692744 TestInferiorCrashing.py
> 22.986511 TestLinuxCore.py
> 23.073790 TestInferiorAssert.py
> 23.193351 TestAnonymous.py
> 24.539430 TestMiStack.py
> 25.232940 TestUnwindExpression.py
> 26.608233 TestSetWatchlocation.py
> 28.977390 TestWatchLocation.py
> 29.057234 TestMultithreaded.py
> 29.813142 TestCPP11EnumTypes.py
> 30.830618 TestWatchLocationWithWatchSet.py
> 32.979785 TestThreadStates.py
> 33.435421 TestTargetWatchAddress.py
> 36.902618 TestNamespaceLookup.py
> 37.705945 TestMiSymbol.py
> 38.735631 TestValueObjectRecursion.py
> 46.870848 TestLldbGdbServer.py
> 49.594663 TestLoadUnload.py
> 52.186429 TestIntegerTypes.py
> 55.340360 TestMiExec.py
> 56.148259 TestIntegerTypesExpr.py
> 110.121061 TestMiGdbSetShow.py
> The top one is an lldb-mi test, and this one takes long for a very silly
> reason: When a test is xfailed because lldb-mi does not produce the expected
> output, pexpect will keep waiting, hoping that it will eventually produce a
> line that matches it's regex. This times out after 30 seconds, so any
> xfailed lldb-mi test will take at least that long. I'm not sure how to fix
> this without revamping the way we do lldb-mi testing (which would probably
> be a good thing, but I don't see anyone queuing up to do that).

I thought about this a little more and I guess the best solution would
be that of removing the timeout altogether.
This is, among others, what llvm does. timeouts can be opt-in. Setting
a timeout means inherently making an assumption about the speed at
which the machine will run the test.
It's, therefore, by definition, impossible to set an "optimal" value.
That said, slow tests should be analyzed independently (as we want
people to not tapping fingers while waiting for tests to complete).


lldb-dev mailing list

Reply via email to