On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:20:57AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 12/04/2017 04:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:14:06AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>On 12/04/2017 08:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:21:04PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>>On 4.12.2017 15:03, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:55:45PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>>>>On 1.12.2017 23:44, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>>>On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:07:54AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>>>>>>>On 12/01/2017 08:19 AM, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>Hi, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>On 1.12.2017 16:06, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>On 12/01/2017 03:46 PM, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>Qemu for arm32/arm64 has a problem with time setup. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be preferable to fix the root cause? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Definitely that would be the best and IIRC I have tried to convince > >>>>>>>>>our > >>>>>>>>>qemu guy to do that but they have never done that. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>What is the exact failure condition? Is it simply that the test is > >>>>>>>>still > >>>>>>>>slightly too strict about which delays it accepts, or is sleep > >>>>>>>>outright > >>>>>>>>broken? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>You can use command-line option -k to avoid some tests. For example > >>>>>>>>"-k not > >>>>>>>>sleep". That way, we don't have to hard-code the dependency into the > >>>>>>>>test > >>>>>>>>source. Depending on the root cause (issue in U-Boot, or issue in > >>>>>>>>just your > >>>>>>>>local version of qemu, or something that will never work) this might > >>>>>>>>be > >>>>>>>>better? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Even with the most recent relaxing of the sleep test requirements, I > >>>>>>>can > >>>>>>>still (depending on overall system load) have 'sleep' take too long, on > >>>>>>>QEMU. I think it might have been half a second slow, but I don't have > >>>>>>>the log handy anymore. Both locally and in travis we -k not sleep all > >>>>>>>of the qemu instances. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>ok. By locally do you mean just using -k not sleep? > >>>>> > >>>>>Yes, I have that in my CI scripts and similar. > >>>> > >>>>Wouldn't be easier to keep this in uboot-test-hooks repo with other > >>>>target setting? > >>> > >>>Or do as you did did and mark the tests as not allowed for qemu, yes. > >>> > >>>>What we are trying to do is that our testing group will run these tests > >>>>for me that's why it is just easier for me to change local > >>>>uboot-test-hooks repo instead of communicate with them what -k not XXX > >>>>parameters to add to certain scripts. > >>>> > >>>>It means in loop they will just run all tests on qemu, local targets and > >>>>in boardfarm. It is probably not big deal to tell them to add -k not > >>>>sleep for all qemu runs but I know that for some i2c testing qemu > >>>>doesn't emulate these devices that's why these tests fails. And the > >>>>amount of tests which we shouldn't run on qemu will probably grow. > >>> > >>>Well, I'm still open to possibly tweaking the allowed variance in the > >>>sleep test. OTOH, if we just say "no QEMU" here, we can then go back to > >>>"sleep should be pretty darn accurate on HW" for the test too, and > >>>perhaps that's best. > >> > >>The fundamental problem of "over-sleeping" due to host system load/.. exists > >>with all boards. There's nothing specific to qemu here except that running > >>U-Boot on qemu on the host rather than on separate HW might more easily > >>trigger the "high load on the host" condition; I see the issue now and then > >>and manually retry that test, although that is a bit annoying. > >> > >>The original test was mostly intended to make sure that e U-Boot clock > >>didn't run at a significantly different rate to the host, since I had seen > >>that issue during development of some board support or as a regression > >>sometime. Perhaps the definition of "significantly different" should be more > >>like "1/2 rate or twice rate or more" rather than "off by a small fraction > >>of a second". That might avoid so many false positives. > > > >I've pushed this up to 10 seconds and 0.5s worth of overrun and on > >qemu-mips here I see a 13.2s sleep. That's pretty close to 1/3rd fast > >and to me a wrong-clocking value, yes? > > For me the qemu-x86 build of mid-Nov commit of U-Boot running under the same > qemu version that U-Boot's Travis CI builds use, "sleep 10" takes about 10.5 > seconds (including my reaction time), so ~13.2 does sound like it's probably > a bug. Or maybe qemu just isn't fast enough in its emulation to keep up with > real-time? I'd hope not for something simple like this, assuming you're > using a recent CPU, but maybe.
Yeah, I can do x86, ARM and PowerPC but it fails on MIPS. And my build box isn't super new but an 8core/16thread E5-2670 should be good enough :) Hey Daniel, do you have test.py running on real MIPS hardware? Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
