From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:36:10 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH V2 1/2] ltp: Add the ability to specify the latency constraint In-Reply-To: <99937465-7b6b-ce2c-6194-bf920b2994f4@linaro.org> References: <337916262.70548323.1502450718721.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <1502456086-14696-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <20170811140905.GB3341@rei.lan> <20170811152855.GA14152@rei.lan> <20170814133351.GA11524@rei> <99937465-7b6b-ce2c-6194-bf920b2994f4@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20170814143609.GB11524@rei> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > > That explains it. Previously each of the timer testcases had it's own > > PASS/FAIL criteria and each of them was slightly different. We got rid > > of that mess recetly and so the latest git has a timer measurement > > library and the test only defines a sampling function now. We also did > > quite a lot of testing to make sure that the test are stable now. And > > because of that we take more samples and apply discarded mean to get rid > > of random outliners. But we did most of the testing on x86 hardware so > > it's possible that it still needs some adjustements. > > IMO, you should not try to adjust this because there can be a so big gap > between some arch/platforms in term of exit_latency that can make the > test to miss a bug. I mean being more tolerant for one arch can make the > test miss a bug on another arch. > > eg. > > exynos4 : 5000us > at91: 10us > ux500: 70us > mediatek: 600us > ppc: 10us > x86: 86us > sh mobile: 2300us > > etc... Ok. > The simplest and cleanest way is to reduce the latency to its minimum in > order to reduce the energy framework impact on the tests. > > It is recent the mobile runs ltp. Sounds reasonably then. > > Can you, please, try with the latest git to see if these tests works for > > you now? And then, in a case that they stil fail, we will figure out how > > to fix them. Most likely we will patch the timer test library, either > > to loosen the crieria or to keep the cpu_dma_latecy open while we sample > > the timers. > > There is a misunderstanding. I ran the tests (and they fail) on the > latest one 4a707d417e3f95025fe6c707e2763e84b2bed29a. Okay, and do all of the timer tests fail or just some subset? And even if only subset of them fails I would still consider changing the timer library rather than individual testcases. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz