Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v5 6/6] iotests: extend sleeping time under Valgrind

2019-08-28 Thread John Snow 



On 8/28/19 11:24 AM, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
> 
> 
> On 27/08/2019 22:42, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> 16.08.2019 4:01, John Snow wrote:


 On 7/19/19 12:30 PM, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
> To synchronize the time when QEMU is running longer under the Valgrind,
> increase the sleeping time in the test 247.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Shinkevich 
> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy 
> ---
>tests/qemu-iotests/247 | 6 +-
>1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/247 b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
> index 546a794..c853b73 100755
> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/247
> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
> @@ -57,7 +57,11 @@ TEST_IMG="$TEST_IMG.4" _make_test_img $size
>{"execute":"block-commit",
> "arguments":{"device":"format-4", "top-node": "format-2", 
> "base-node":"format-0", "job-id":"job0"}}
>EOF
> -sleep 1
> +if [ "${VALGRIND_QEMU}" == "y" ]; then
> +sleep 10
> +else
> +sleep 1
> +fi
>echo '{"execute":"quit"}'
>) | $QEMU -qmp stdio -nographic -nodefaults \
>-blockdev 
> file,node-name=file-0,filename=$TEST_IMG.0,auto-read-only=on \
>

 This makes me nervous, though. Won't this race terribly? (Wait, why
 doesn't it race already?)

>>>
>>> Hmm, however it works somehow. I'm afraid that everything with "sleep" is 
>>> definitely racy..
>>> Or what do you mean?
>>>
>>
>> Right -- anything with a sleep is already at risk for racing.
>>
>> What I am picking up on here is that with valgrind, there is an even
>> greater computational overhead that's much harder to predict, so I was
>> wondering how these values were determined.
>>
> 
> I just followed the trend and extended the sleeping time with a grater 
> tolerance so that the test could pass on systems where the 'sleep 1' 
> command helps to pass without Valgrind. We could rewrite the test 247 in 
> Python in a separate series, shall we?
> 

If you have the time, but I don't think anyone will require it for this
series.

Just reviewing "out loud." I'll look at V6 soon.

--js

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v5 6/6] iotests: extend sleeping time under Valgrind

2019-08-28 Thread Andrey Shinkevich 


On 27/08/2019 22:42, John Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 16.08.2019 4:01, John Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/19/19 12:30 PM, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
 To synchronize the time when QEMU is running longer under the Valgrind,
 increase the sleeping time in the test 247.

 Signed-off-by: Andrey Shinkevich 
 Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy 
 ---
tests/qemu-iotests/247 | 6 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

 diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/247 b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
 index 546a794..c853b73 100755
 --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/247
 +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
 @@ -57,7 +57,11 @@ TEST_IMG="$TEST_IMG.4" _make_test_img $size
{"execute":"block-commit",
 "arguments":{"device":"format-4", "top-node": "format-2", 
 "base-node":"format-0", "job-id":"job0"}}
EOF
 -sleep 1
 +if [ "${VALGRIND_QEMU}" == "y" ]; then
 +sleep 10
 +else
 +sleep 1
 +fi
echo '{"execute":"quit"}'
) | $QEMU -qmp stdio -nographic -nodefaults \
-blockdev 
 file,node-name=file-0,filename=$TEST_IMG.0,auto-read-only=on \

>>>
>>> This makes me nervous, though. Won't this race terribly? (Wait, why
>>> doesn't it race already?)
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, however it works somehow. I'm afraid that everything with "sleep" is 
>> definitely racy..
>> Or what do you mean?
>>
> 
> Right -- anything with a sleep is already at risk for racing.
> 
> What I am picking up on here is that with valgrind, there is an even
> greater computational overhead that's much harder to predict, so I was
> wondering how these values were determined.
> 

I just followed the trend and extended the sleeping time with a grater 
tolerance so that the test could pass on systems where the 'sleep 1' 
command helps to pass without Valgrind. We could rewrite the test 247 in 
Python in a separate series, shall we?

Andrey

> (I wouldn't withhold an RB for that alone -- the sleeps are existing
> problems.)
> 
> What I moved on to wondering in particular is why test 247 doesn't
> already have race problems, because it looks quite fragile.
> 
> Neither of these are really Andrey's problems; I was just surprised
> momentarily that I don't see 247 fail more often already, as-is.
> 
> --js
> 

-- 
With the best regards,
Andrey Shinkevich

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v5 6/6] iotests: extend sleeping time under Valgrind

2019-08-27 Thread John Snow 



On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 16.08.2019 4:01, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/19/19 12:30 PM, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
>>> To synchronize the time when QEMU is running longer under the Valgrind,
>>> increase the sleeping time in the test 247.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Shinkevich 
>>> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy 
>>> ---
>>>   tests/qemu-iotests/247 | 6 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/247 b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
>>> index 546a794..c853b73 100755
>>> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/247
>>> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
>>> @@ -57,7 +57,11 @@ TEST_IMG="$TEST_IMG.4" _make_test_img $size
>>>   {"execute":"block-commit",
>>>"arguments":{"device":"format-4", "top-node": "format-2", 
>>> "base-node":"format-0", "job-id":"job0"}}
>>>   EOF
>>> -sleep 1
>>> +if [ "${VALGRIND_QEMU}" == "y" ]; then
>>> +sleep 10
>>> +else
>>> +sleep 1
>>> +fi
>>>   echo '{"execute":"quit"}'
>>>   ) | $QEMU -qmp stdio -nographic -nodefaults \
>>>   -blockdev 
>>> file,node-name=file-0,filename=$TEST_IMG.0,auto-read-only=on \
>>>
>>
>> This makes me nervous, though. Won't this race terribly? (Wait, why
>> doesn't it race already?)
>>
> 
> Hmm, however it works somehow. I'm afraid that everything with "sleep" is 
> definitely racy..
> Or what do you mean?
> 

Right -- anything with a sleep is already at risk for racing.

What I am picking up on here is that with valgrind, there is an even
greater computational overhead that's much harder to predict, so I was
wondering how these values were determined.

(I wouldn't withhold an RB for that alone -- the sleeps are existing
problems.)

What I moved on to wondering in particular is why test 247 doesn't
already have race problems, because it looks quite fragile.

Neither of these are really Andrey's problems; I was just surprised
momentarily that I don't see 247 fail more often already, as-is.

--js

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v5 6/6] iotests: extend sleeping time under Valgrind

2019-08-25 Thread Andrey Shinkevich 
On 16/08/2019 04:01, John Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/19/19 12:30 PM, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
>> To synchronize the time when QEMU is running longer under the Valgrind,
>> increase the sleeping time in the test 247.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Shinkevich 
>> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy 
>> ---
>>   tests/qemu-iotests/247 | 6 +-
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/247 b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
>> index 546a794..c853b73 100755
>> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/247
>> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
>> @@ -57,7 +57,11 @@ TEST_IMG="$TEST_IMG.4" _make_test_img $size
>>   {"execute":"block-commit",
>>"arguments":{"device":"format-4", "top-node": "format-2", 
>> "base-node":"format-0", "job-id":"job0"}}
>>   EOF
>> -sleep 1
>> +if [ "${VALGRIND_QEMU}" == "y" ]; then
>> +sleep 10
>> +else
>> +sleep 1
>> +fi
>>   echo '{"execute":"quit"}'
>>   ) | $QEMU -qmp stdio -nographic -nodefaults \
>>   -blockdev file,node-name=file-0,filename=$TEST_IMG.0,auto-read-only=on 
>> \
>>
> 
> This makes me nervous, though. Won't this race terribly? (Wait, why
> doesn't it race already?)
> 
It maybe better to rewrite this test in Python.
To let it work under Valgrind in the current implementation, I reserved 
more seconds. We could have this tolerance just for the test.

Andrey
-- 
With the best regards,
Andrey Shinkevich

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v5 6/6] iotests: extend sleeping time under Valgrind

2019-08-23 Thread Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy 
16.08.2019 4:01, John Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/19/19 12:30 PM, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
>> To synchronize the time when QEMU is running longer under the Valgrind,
>> increase the sleeping time in the test 247.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Shinkevich 
>> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy 
>> ---
>>   tests/qemu-iotests/247 | 6 +-
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/247 b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
>> index 546a794..c853b73 100755
>> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/247
>> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
>> @@ -57,7 +57,11 @@ TEST_IMG="$TEST_IMG.4" _make_test_img $size
>>   {"execute":"block-commit",
>>"arguments":{"device":"format-4", "top-node": "format-2", 
>> "base-node":"format-0", "job-id":"job0"}}
>>   EOF
>> -sleep 1
>> +if [ "${VALGRIND_QEMU}" == "y" ]; then
>> +sleep 10
>> +else
>> +sleep 1
>> +fi
>>   echo '{"execute":"quit"}'
>>   ) | $QEMU -qmp stdio -nographic -nodefaults \
>>   -blockdev file,node-name=file-0,filename=$TEST_IMG.0,auto-read-only=on 
>> \
>>
> 
> This makes me nervous, though. Won't this race terribly? (Wait, why
> doesn't it race already?)
> 

Hmm, however it works somehow. I'm afraid that everything with "sleep" is 
definitely racy..
Or what do you mean?

-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v5 6/6] iotests: extend sleeping time under Valgrind

2019-08-15 Thread John Snow 



On 7/19/19 12:30 PM, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
> To synchronize the time when QEMU is running longer under the Valgrind,
> increase the sleeping time in the test 247.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Shinkevich 
> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy 
> ---
>  tests/qemu-iotests/247 | 6 +-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/247 b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
> index 546a794..c853b73 100755
> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/247
> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
> @@ -57,7 +57,11 @@ TEST_IMG="$TEST_IMG.4" _make_test_img $size
>  {"execute":"block-commit",
>   "arguments":{"device":"format-4", "top-node": "format-2", 
> "base-node":"format-0", "job-id":"job0"}}
>  EOF
> -sleep 1
> +if [ "${VALGRIND_QEMU}" == "y" ]; then
> +sleep 10
> +else
> +sleep 1
> +fi
>  echo '{"execute":"quit"}'
>  ) | $QEMU -qmp stdio -nographic -nodefaults \
>  -blockdev file,node-name=file-0,filename=$TEST_IMG.0,auto-read-only=on \
> 

This makes me nervous, though. Won't this race terribly? (Wait, why
doesn't it race already?)

[Qemu-block] [PATCH v5 6/6] iotests: extend sleeping time under Valgrind

2019-07-19 Thread Andrey Shinkevich 
To synchronize the time when QEMU is running longer under the Valgrind,
increase the sleeping time in the test 247.

Signed-off-by: Andrey Shinkevich 
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy 
---
 tests/qemu-iotests/247 | 6 +-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/247 b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
index 546a794..c853b73 100755
--- a/tests/qemu-iotests/247
+++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/247
@@ -57,7 +57,11 @@ TEST_IMG="$TEST_IMG.4" _make_test_img $size
 {"execute":"block-commit",
  "arguments":{"device":"format-4", "top-node": "format-2", 
"base-node":"format-0", "job-id":"job0"}}
 EOF
-sleep 1
+if [ "${VALGRIND_QEMU}" == "y" ]; then
+sleep 10
+else
+sleep 1
+fi
 echo '{"execute":"quit"}'
 ) | $QEMU -qmp stdio -nographic -nodefaults \
 -blockdev file,node-name=file-0,filename=$TEST_IMG.0,auto-read-only=on \
-- 
1.8.3.1