On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 04:12:35PM -0700, Marc Herbert wrote: > Thanks for the prompt feedback! > > On 2025-05-12 11:35, Alison Schofield wrote: > > > Since this patch is doing 2 things, the the journalctl timing, and > > the parse of additional messages, I would typically ask for 2 patches, > > but - I want to do even more. I want to revive an old, unmerged set > > tackling similar work and get it all tidy'd up at once. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1701143039.git.alison.schofi...@intel.com/ > > cxl/test: add and use cxl_common_[start|stop] helpers > > cxl/test: add a cxl_ derivative of check_dmesg() > > cxl/test: use an explicit --since time in journalctl > > > > Please take a look at how the prev patch did journalctl start time. > > We've been using a "start time" in > https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-test for many years and it's been > only "OK", not great. I did not know about the $SECONDS magic variable > at the time, otherwise I would have tried it in sof-test! The main > advantage of $SECONDS: there is nothing to do, meaning there is no > "cxl_common_start()" to forget or do wrong. Speaking of which: I tested > this patch on the _entire_ ndctl/test, not just with --suite=cxl whereas > https://lore.kernel.org/all/d76c005105b7612dc47ccd19e102d462c0f4fc1b.1701143039.git.alison.schofi...@intel.com/ > seems to have a CXL-specific "cxl_common_start()" only? > > Also, in my experience some sort of short COOLDOWN is always necessary > anyway for various reasons: > - Some tests can sometimes have "after shocks" and a cooldown helps > with most of these. > - A short gap in the logs really help with their _readability_. > - Clocks can shift, especially inside QEMU (I naively tried to increase > the number of cores in run_qemu.sh but had to give up due so "clock skew") > - Others I probably forgot. > > On my system, the average, per-test duration is about 10s and I find that > 10% is an acceptable price to pay for the peace of mind. But a starttime > should hopefully work too, at least for the majority of the time. > > > > I believe the kmesg_fail... can be used to catch any of the failed > > sorts that the old series wanted to do. > > Yes it does, I tried to explain that but afraid my English wasn't good > enough? > > > Maybe add a brief write up of how to use the kmesg choices per > > test and in the common code. > > Q.E.D ;-) > > > Is the new kmesg approach going to fail on any ERROR or WARNING that > > we don't kmesg_no_fail_on ? > > Yes, this is the main purpose. The other feature is failing when > any of the _expected_ ERROR or WARNING is not found. > > > And then can we simply add dev_dbg() messages to fail if missing. > > I'm afraid you just lost me at this point... my patch already does that > without any dev_dbg()...?
Let me rephrase that - can we simply add dev_dbg() messages to the 'kmesg_' fail scheme, like in my check_dmesg() patch. > > > I'll take a further look for example at the poison test. We want > > it to warn that the poison is in a region. That is a good and > > expected warning. However, if that warn is missing, then the test > > is broken! It might not 'FAIL', but it's no longer doing what we > > want. > > I agree: the expected "poison inject" and "poison clear" messages should > be in the kmsg_fail_if_missing array[], not in the kmsg_no_fail_on[] > array. BUT in my experience this makes cxl-poison.sh fail when run > multiple times. So yes: there seems to be a problem with this test. (I > should probably file a bug somewhere?) So I put them in > kmsg_fail_if_missing[] for now because I don't have time to look into it > now and I don't think a problem in a single test should hold back the > improvement for the entire suite that exposes it. Even with just > kmsg_no_fail_on[], this test is still better than now. > > BTW this is a typical game of whack-a-mole every time you try to tighten > a test screw. In SOF it took 4-5 years to finally catch all firmware > errors: https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-test/issues/297 > > > > > So, let's work on a rev 2 that does all the things of both our > > patches. I'm happy to work it with you, or not. > > I agree the COOLDOWN / starttime is a separate feature. But... I needed it > for the tests to pass! I find it important to keep the tests all passing > in every commit for bisectability etc., hope you agree. Also, really hard > to submit anything that does not pass the tests :-) > How are the tests failing without the COOLDOWN now? > As of now, the tests tolerate cross-test pollution. Being more > demanding when inspecting the logs obviously makes them fail, at least > sometimes. I agree the "timing" solution should go first, so here's > a suggested plan: > > 1. a) Either I resubmit my COOLDOWN alone, > b) or you generalize your cxl_common_start()/starttime to non-CXL tests. > > No check_dmesg() change yet. "cxl_check_dmesg()" is abandoned forever. > > Then: > > 2. I rebase and resubmit my kmsg_no_fail_on=... > > This will give more time for people to try and report any issue in the > timing fix 1. - whichever is it. > > In the 1.a) case, I think your [cxl_]common_start() de-duplication is > 99% independent and can be submitted at any point. > > > Thoughts? Split them into a patchset for easier review and then I'll take a look. Thanks! > > PS: keep in mind I may be pulled in other priorities at any time :-(
