On 06/07/2017 10:28, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:30:43PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 27/06/2017 09:02, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 26/06/2017 17:09, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:31:39PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Small series which saves test execution time by removing the
redundant tests.
Tvrtko Ursulin (4):
igt: Remove default from the engine list
gem_exec_basic: Exercise the default engine selection
gem_sync: Add all and store_all subtests
extended.testlist: Remove some test-subtest combinations
Ack on patches 1&2, but I'm not sold on patch 3. Atm gem_* takes a
ridiculous amount of machine time to run, you're adding more stuff. Are
those tests really drastially better at catching races if we run them 10x
longer? Is there no better way to exercise the races (lots more machines,
maybe slower ones, which is atm impossible since it just takes way, way
too long and we need an entire farm just for one machine).
New gem_sync subtests were suggested by Chris after I send the first
version of the series with the goal of getting the same coverage in
faster time.
If you look at patch 4, it removes 18 * 150s of gem_sync subtests, and
adds 4 * 150s. So in total we are 35 minutes better of in the best case,
a bit less on smaller machines.
This is just for gem_sync, I forgot what did the saving for the series
add up to. 1-2 hours maybe?
Also not sure how much curating extended.testlist is worth it, just make
the testcases faster :-) Like, roughly 100x faster overall for gem_*
... >
But meanwhile ack on that one too.
In which one, 3, or 4, or both?
Ping on the series - do we want to try easy runtime reduction via this way
or should I drop it?
Go ahead. I'm still not happy with keeping tests around just because, but
that's a larger topic.
Thanks, pushed.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
