On 1/29/21 1:30 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 1/27/21 2:59 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
Since we've switched to meson our tests run with a timeout (meson
uses 30 seconds as the default). However, not every machine that
builds libvirt is fast enough to run every test under 30 seconds
(each test binary has its own timeout, but still). For instance
when building a package for distro on a farm that's under load.
Or on a generally slow ARM hardware. While each developer can
tune their command line for building by adding
--timeout-multiplier=10, this is hard to do for aforementioned
build farms.
It's time to admit that not everybody has the latest, top shelf
CPU and increase the timeout.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mpriv...@redhat.com>
---
This sure will help these build farms environments, but what about the
cases
where an actual timeout means that there is something wrong with the code?
E.g. commits 46d88d8dba56 and 2ba0b7497ce7 were only possible because I was
seeing tests timing out in Power hosts when the 30 sec timeout was being
enforced.
A 120 second default timeout for the majority of the test cases is a
long time.
virschematest in this laptop I use takes 2.5 sec to complete. If I do
something
wrong in the code and now the test is now 4 times slower (10 sec) I will
not be
able to detect it (I'll need to start keeping track or something).
With 30 second timeout you won't detect that either. Using timeout as an
indicator of test failure is wrong IMO. And if I were not lazy and fixed
'check-access' test suite then we would see instantly what tests are
accessing paths in the host (=> depend on host configuration).
You'll have to
run the test suit on your RasPi 2B to see that something went wrong
because the
timeout is better tuned to your RasPI than this laptop, but then the
code is already
upstream.
So should we make timeouts shorter then? Why is 30 seconds sweet spot?
And the tests will get more complex and will naturally take longer to
complete.
Eventually this timeout might no be enough. Increase the timeout again?
Sure, why not? We adapt to newer gcc/clang/$whatever, why not timeout?
Michal
