From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988CBC04A6B for ; Fri, 10 May 2019 14:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E548216C4 for ; Fri, 10 May 2019 14:23:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6E548216C4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44200 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hP6Qy-0007Nb-M8 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 10:23:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44445) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hP6P7-0006BX-1u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 10:21:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hP6P5-0008KB-55 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2019 10:21:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8418) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hP6P1-0008HP-75; Fri, 10 May 2019 10:21:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B684D307EAA3; Fri, 10 May 2019 14:21:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-116-183.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.183]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E2AB5D9D5; Fri, 10 May 2019 14:21:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 16:21:22 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf To: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <20190510142122.GC5887@localhost.localdomain> References: <20190502084506.8009-1-thuth@redhat.com> <20190502084506.8009-7-thuth@redhat.com> <87ef5acsce.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <3741b9b6-632a-b517-7533-818727ef75a7@redhat.com> <44a3ebee-c717-d953-8e89-c24da99209a6@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.44]); Fri, 10 May 2019 14:21:33 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 6/7] tests/qemu-iotests/group: Re-use the "auto" group for tests that can always run X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Fam Zheng , Ed Maste , qemu-block@nongnu.org, Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Markus Armbruster , Christophe Fergeau , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= , Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Max Reitz , Li-Wen Hsu Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Am 10.05.2019 um 10:55 hat Thomas Huth geschrieben: > On 08/05/2019 07.47, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 07/05/2019 17.50, Eric Blake wrote: > >> On 5/7/19 10:22 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > >>> On 07/05/2019 15.22, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >>>> Thomas Huth writes: > >>>> > >>>>> Currently, all tests are in the "auto" group. This is a little bit pointless. > >>>>> OTOH, we need a group for the tests that we can automatically run during > >>>>> "make check" each time, too. Tests in this new group are supposed to run > >>>>> with every possible QEMU configuration, for example they must run with every > >>>>> QEMU binary (also non-x86), without failing when an optional features is > >>>>> missing (but reporting "skip" is ok), and be able to run on all kind of host > >>>>> filesystems and users (i.e. also as "nobody" or "root"). > >>>>> So let's use the "auto" group for this class of tests now. The initial > >>>>> list has been determined by running the iotests with non-x86 QEMU targets > >>>>> and with our CI pipelines on Gitlab, Cirrus-CI and Travis (i.e. including > >>>>> macOS and FreeBSD). > >>>> > >>>> I wonder whether we should additionally limit "make check" to "quick" > >>>> tests. How slow are the non-quick auto tests for you? > >>> > >>> I already sorted out some of the tests that run veeeery long, since the > >>> run time on gitlab, cirrus-ci and travis is limited. "make check-block" > >>> currently takes 3 minutes on my laptop, I think that's still ok? > >>> > >>> When I run the tests from the auto group that are not in the quick > >>> group, I currently get: > >>> > >> > >> My personal threshold is about 5 seconds for quick, so: > >> > >>> 003 1s ... > >>> 007 2s ... > >> > >> Should these be moved to quick? > > > > I'll leave that decision up to the blocklayer folks ... I thought that > > there might have been a different reason that these have not been put > > into "quick" yet...? > > > >>> 013 5s ... > >> > >> this one is borderline > >> > >>> 014 15s ... > >>> 015 9s ... > >> > >> Definitely not quick, but if you think they are still okay for auto, I > >> can live with that. > >> > >>> 022 1s ... > >> > >> Another candidate for quick? > >> > >>> 023 18s ... > >> > >> Even longer than 14. Okay for auto? > > > > I think I'd give it a try. If people are complaining later that "make > > check" is running now way too long, we still can refine the list later. > > Thinking about this again, "make check" now runs quite a bit longer > indeed. So I now rather tend to remove the tests that run longer than 5s > from the auto group instead... I think I'll send a v4 of this patch > where I'll remove them from the auto group. I don't think time is everything. We should also consider how much the tests contribute to basic code coverage. There is no point in removing a test from the list because it takes 10 seconds, but if I split it in two tests taking each 5 seconds, you would include both halves. For example, 030, 040 and 041 are not that quick (14/11/42 seconds, respectively), but they are the most important tests for block jobs and covering a lot. Sure, 42 seconds is a lot, but I'd keep 030 and 040 at least. Kevin