On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 1:47 PM John Snow <js...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 9:31 AM Ani Sinha <a...@anisinha.ca> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 3:36 PM Ani Sinha <a...@anisinha.ca> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 9:07 AM Ani Sinha <a...@anisinha.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 5:13 AM John Snow <js...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:22 PM Ani Sinha <a...@anisinha.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:37 PM John Snow <js...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hiya, on today's origin/master > > > > > > > (2ccad61746ca7de5dd3e25146062264387e43bd4) I'm finding that "make > > > > > > > check-avocado" is failing on the new biosbits test on my local > > > > > > > development machine: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (001/193) > > > > > > > tests/avocado/acpi-bits.py:AcpiBitsTest.test_acpi_smbios_bits: > > > > > > > FAIL: True is not false : The VM seems to have failed to shutdown > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > time (83.65 s) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this a known issue, or should I begin to investigate it? > > > > > > > > > > > > In my test environment it does pass. > > > > > > > > > > > > $ ./tests/venv/bin/avocado run -t acpi tests/avocado > > > > > > Fetching asset from > > > > > > tests/avocado/acpi-bits.py:AcpiBitsTest.test_acpi_smbios_bits > > > > > > JOB ID : 35726df7d3c2e0f41847822620c78195ba45b9b9 > > > > > > JOB LOG : > > > > > > /home/anisinha/avocado/job-results/job-2022-11-11T09.42-35726df/job.log > > > > > > (1/1) > > > > > > tests/avocado/acpi-bits.py:AcpiBitsTest.test_acpi_smbios_bits: > > > > > > PASS (57.57 s) > > > > > > RESULTS : PASS 1 | ERROR 0 | FAIL 0 | SKIP 0 | WARN 0 | > > > > > > INTERRUPT 0 > > > > > > | CANCEL 0 > > > > > > JOB TIME : 63.82 s > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I have seen that on certain slower test machines or when > > > > > > run > > > > > > within a virtual machine, the test can take longer to complete and > > > > > > 60 > > > > > > secs may not always be enough. In those cases raising the maximum > > > > > > completion time to 90 secs helps. Perhaps you can try this and let > > > > > > me > > > > > > know if it helps: > > > > > > > > > > Hmm - I'm running on a fairly modern machine and not in a VM. Do you > > > > > have an invocation to share that exists outside of the avocado > > > > > machinery > > > > > > > > If you pass V=1 in the environment then it dumps the QEMU command line > > > > that was used to run the test. You also need to comment out the line > > > > > shutil.rmtree(self._workDir) > > > > in tearDown() so that the iso is not cleaned up. > > > > > > Maybe I will send out this patch once we have figured out what is > > > going on with your environment: > > > https://gitlab.com/anisinha/qemu/-/commit/5e8c629fdecc7cb650e4acaad8a8fcc2b248434e > > > > > > I ran the test on another box sitting in my office running centos7.9 > > > and it passed as well. > > > > For the records, > > I ran make check-avocado on my Ubuntu 222.04 laptop: > > https://pastebin.com/0ZKEEQds > > On a separate centos 7.9 box (fairly new) : https://pastebin.com/QWLGDbp4 > > As a question: Is it necessary to implement your own timeout here? > What's wrong with relying on Avocado's timeout? > My hunch is that you'll get greater flexibility by leaning into the > tool suite's configuration instead of hardcoding your own... > > For what it's worth, I am now trying to run this test manually by doing: > > > time ./qemu-system-x86_64 -cdrom > > /var/tmp/acpi-bits-b_br0ch8.tmp/bits-2020.iso -icount auto > > This is not a quick test: > > ________________________________________________________ > Executed in 86.50 secs fish external > usr time 86.57 secs 0.00 micros 86.57 secs > sys time 0.30 secs 903.00 micros 0.29 secs > > > This isn't the *most* cutting edge machine, but it's a Intel(R) > Core(TM) i7-9850H CPU @ 2.60GHz with 32GB of memory and NVME storage. > Is your machine really passing this test in under 60 seconds flat? >
FWIW, I sent a patch to just disable the test-specific timeout. I figure you had a good reason for putting it there, but I suppose you'll tell me tomorrow what that reason was :) I couldn't get the test to finish in under 60 seconds on this machine, but I did manage to get it to finish in under 60 on my ... 16 core AMD 5950X. Just needed some very heavy firepower, I guess! --js
