On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:06:59 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 02:59:30PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > CI often fails 'cross-i686-tci' job due to runner slowness
> > Log shows that test almost complete, with a few remaining
> > when bios-tables-test timeout hits:
> > 
> >   19/270 qemu:qtest+qtest-aarch64 / qtest-aarch64/bios-tables-test
> >     TIMEOUT        610.02s   killed by signal 15 SIGTERM
> >   ...
> >   stderr:
> >   TAP parsing error: Too few tests run (expected 8, got 7)
> > 
> > At the same time overall job running time is only ~30 out of 1hr allowed.
> > 
> > Increase bios-tables-test instance timeout on 5min as a fix
> > for slow CI runners.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>  
> 
> We can't just keep increasing the timeout.
in this case I'm following precedent
https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/commit/a1f5a47b60d119859d974bed4d66db745448aac6
I'm not saying that the right approach (though seems to work for now)

> The issue is checking wall time on a busy host,
> isn't it? Let's check CPU time instead.
It likely won't help as we still racing with wallclock
overall job timeout (which sometimes triggers failure too,
I guess it depends on stars alignment and load on the host).

Anyways, I don't have know-how when it comes to meson,
to do more than this patch.

with this patch 'cross-i686-tci' job passes for me,
but we have msys2-64bit failing atm due timeouts as well
(seems to be limited to sparc tests)

> 
> > ---
> >  tests/qtest/meson.build | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/qtest/meson.build b/tests/qtest/meson.build
> > index 6508bfb1a2..ff9200f882 100644
> > --- a/tests/qtest/meson.build
> > +++ b/tests/qtest/meson.build
> > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> >  slow_qtests = {
> >    'aspeed_smc-test': 360,
> > -  'bios-tables-test' : 610,
> > +  'bios-tables-test' : 910,
> >    'cdrom-test' : 610,
> >    'device-introspect-test' : 720,
> >    'migration-test' : 480,
> > -- 
> > 2.43.0  
> 


Reply via email to