On 5.12.2017 19:38, Tom Rini wrote: > 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 > :)
I should spend some time to add also microblaze. :-) Thanks, Michal -- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91 w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854 Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Microblaze Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM and ZynqMP ARM64 SoCs U-Boot custodian - Xilinx Microblaze/Zynq/ZynqMP SoCs
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
