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 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F33F9C433F5 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 20:01:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:46792 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nAdcL-0006RO-JM for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 15:01:17 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51556) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nAZ8f-0005CO-Iz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 10:14:13 -0500 Received: from [2a00:1450:4864:20::32a] (port=47052 helo=mail-wm1-x32a.google.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nAZ8d-0002m3-F5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 10:14:13 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id az27-20020a05600c601b00b0034d2956eb04so14434659wmb.5 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 07:14:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IogVwR0JEQ1aQS9gzhq8kcdl8IFdw2NlrDiATe7UQD8=; b=TvcpVIAL5JiRVCpLJDBwtxFbbzzkTCo+xRcAyneaLm3XvvpbXHm/3rPCMdeAJyWlAX 7dmsYdGQsqqBSN93EoxXVXrQVI9hMn6q31tCkdsc0Tw5blBfkGHKecCQ+hDKvz6Y3NVE PRz+KfHBYhglTfC0EyLdd+3yWHSvEUK0TytemjxZi6g/xMxzCLvGj9E0+lI34FMh7UhV cnMB5jRRDr01RUe0expt+lrWdx1fYGaj5slH6tv6h2wmwPKWCj+gvX07L20++yVzEM1R p4eq5aJGY2o6dD1tltWzYJ33++127MXB9MuWjvZB+nAJCl//D7q3waPsTo+k+sWif2tZ U6lg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IogVwR0JEQ1aQS9gzhq8kcdl8IFdw2NlrDiATe7UQD8=; b=JfCn7vZVUaz2vjTgNp9tu+H4ZhMT98Tbsxjk4HqVtU+nIJWQGKrGwAwqj/tcBQZ6PC 1ESN/yd+JaHZxLFL/iC5eCWfYkpBPpyiOpgSFG0WoojWOAnxLZSUxQdfbIPo0tDR1rcE QsByRr4aDiYvVyx2/5Ps12bliZQZC8Gb1V/vCE/xJar6X6KzdcliiGTfrFZX8/QpdoIw HyyJ3RPX+dNuTFRfDMPRZRNdx1CoQUzeZy+wXS1KvszBa7hG+3znKdizocA8xPAOMRIf 4ZijaEpr7q/lUbE2HQUGxufi9lZHjeBCgZ+gGh/yEzR+/+8V+oPwKNQulWk3jNKtsJEz 70Vw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5311UwUYH4P64fzEI+OahtCwgJZ+27tKo5xb3eMaR3aUAIOkuDjt yw+RAk+ZoQUOmO7QB+9k1MEKoa6iDHQG61CQfS1bYZja5uw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzzB150MYIZUJMVvI0D67pBKhiuLTmHQQT+vSmpCzj0SsyOH39ut82z+lfsfrlq8tcIAa5arFL9XXMkG7lcEo= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:52c4:: with SMTP id r4mr35650833wrv.521.1642691647185; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 07:14:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Peter Maydell Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 15:13:56 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: "make check-acceptance" takes way too long To: QEMU Developers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2a00:1450:4864:20::32a (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::32a; envelope-from=peter.maydell@linaro.org; helo=mail-wm1-x32a.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -12 X-Spam_score: -1.3 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PDS_HP_HELO_NORDNS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBCZW5uw6ll?= , "Daniel P. Berrange" , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu=2DDaud=C3=A9?= , Cleber Rosa Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 16:12, Peter Maydell wrote: > > "make check-acceptance" takes way way too long. I just did a run > on an arm-and-aarch64-targets-only debug build and it took over > half an hour, and this despite it skipping or cancelling 26 out > of 58 tests! > > I think that ~10 minutes runtime is reasonable. 30 is not; > ideally no individual test would take more than a minute or so. > > Output saying where the time went. The first two tests take > more than 10 minutes *each*. I think a good start would be to find > a way of testing what they're testing that is less heavyweight. Does anybody have some time to look at this? It makes 'check-acceptance' almost unusable for testing fixes locally... -- PMM