[LTP] [PATCH v2 6/6] zram: Increase timeout according to used devices

[Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>]

> Hi!
> > > I would still prefer if we had a timeout there, -1 is for something that
> > > cannot be predicted.

> > > Also we do not expect machine to be heavily loaded, in that case half of
> > > LTP tests would time out.

> > > So I would just measure how long the test takes, then multiply it by 5
> > > or something like that and put that in as a timeout.
> > Do you mean to use high enough static timeout defined before startup (working
> > for maximum possible filesystems)? And create tst_set_timeout() for shell as
> > independent effort?

> I would do:

> * Add tst_set_timeout for shell, so that it mirrors the C API
+1. BTW C has .all_filesystems for timeout for each run, which allows not to
bother with timeout depending on number of filesystems (unlike fuzzy sync, which
also sometimes needs tweak fzsync_pair.exec_time_p). I'm for ignoring this fact,
just to let know that shell API is far behind C API.

> * Measure runtime of the test divide it by the number of supported
>   filesystems, that way we would get mean runtime per filesystem

>   now I would multiply this number with arbitrary constantm, e.g. 5 or
>   even more, this is now timeout per iteration

>   with this number the actuall timeout would be:

>   number_of_filesystems * mean_max_per_run


> Does this sound sane?
+1, thanks!

> I guess that in the end we will end up with something similar what you
> had there, but we would have some data that supports this decision.
+1

Kind regards,
Petr