[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] test: py: Disable sleep test for qemu targets

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:20:57AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 04:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:14:06AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>On 12/04/2017 08:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:21:04PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> >>>>On 4.12.2017 15:03, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>>>On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:55:45PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> >>>>>>On 1.12.2017 23:44, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>>>>>On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:07:54AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>>>>>>>On 12/01/2017 08:19 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>On 1.12.2017 16:06, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>On 12/01/2017 03:46 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>Qemu for arm32/arm64 has a problem with time setup.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Wouldn't it be preferable to fix the root cause?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Definitely that would be the best and IIRC I have tried to convince our
> >>>>>>>>>qemu guy to do that but they have never done that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>What is the exact failure condition? Is it simply that the test is still
> >>>>>>>>slightly too strict about which delays it accepts, or is sleep outright
> >>>>>>>>broken?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You can use command-line option -k to avoid some tests. For example "-k not
> >>>>>>>>sleep". That way, we don't have to hard-code the dependency into the test
> >>>>>>>>source. Depending on the root cause (issue in U-Boot, or issue in just your
> >>>>>>>>local version of qemu, or something that will never work) this might be
> >>>>>>>>better?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Even with the most recent relaxing of the sleep test requirements, I can
> >>>>>>>still (depending on overall system load) have 'sleep' take too long, on
> >>>>>>>QEMU.  I think it might have been half a second slow, but I don't have
> >>>>>>>the log handy anymore.  Both locally and in travis we -k not sleep all
> >>>>>>>of the qemu instances.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>ok. By locally do you mean just using -k not sleep?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes, I have that in my CI scripts and similar.
> >>>>
> >>>>Wouldn't be easier to keep this in uboot-test-hooks repo with other
> >>>>target setting?
> >>>
> >>>Or do as you did did and mark the tests as not allowed for qemu, yes.
> >>>
> >>>>What we are trying to do is that our testing group will run these tests
> >>>>for me that's why it is just easier for me to change local
> >>>>uboot-test-hooks repo instead of communicate with them what -k not XXX
> >>>>parameters to add to certain scripts.
> >>>>
> >>>>It means in loop they will just run all tests on qemu, local targets and
> >>>>in boardfarm. It is probably not big deal to tell them to add -k not
> >>>>sleep for all qemu runs but I know that for some i2c testing qemu
> >>>>doesn't emulate these devices that's why these tests fails. And the
> >>>>amount of tests which we shouldn't run on qemu will probably grow.
> >>>
> >>>Well, I'm still open to possibly tweaking the allowed variance in the
> >>>sleep test.  OTOH, if we just say "no QEMU" here, we can then go back to
> >>>"sleep should be pretty darn accurate on HW" for the test too, and
> >>>perhaps that's best.
> >>
> >>The fundamental problem of "over-sleeping" due to host system load/.. exists
> >>with all boards. There's nothing specific to qemu here except that running
> >>U-Boot on qemu on the host rather than on separate HW might more easily
> >>trigger the "high load on the host" condition; I see the issue now and then
> >>and manually retry that test, although that is a bit annoying.
> >>
> >>The original test was mostly intended to make sure that e U-Boot clock
> >>didn't run at a significantly different rate to the host, since I had seen
> >>that issue during development of some board support or as a regression
> >>sometime. Perhaps the definition of "significantly different" should be more
> >>like "1/2 rate or twice rate or more" rather than "off by a small fraction
> >>of a second". That might avoid so many false positives.
> >
> >I've pushed this up to 10 seconds and 0.5s worth of overrun and on
> >qemu-mips here I see a 13.2s sleep.  That's pretty close to 1/3rd fast
> >and to me a wrong-clocking value, yes?
> 
> For me the qemu-x86 build of mid-Nov commit of U-Boot running under the same
> qemu version that U-Boot's Travis CI builds use, "sleep 10" takes about 10.5
> seconds (including my reaction time), so ~13.2 does sound like it's probably
> a bug. Or maybe qemu just isn't fast enough in its emulation to keep up with
> real-time? I'd hope not for something simple like this, assuming you're
> using a recent CPU, but maybe.

Yeah, I can do x86, ARM and PowerPC but it fails on MIPS.  And my build
box isn't super new but an 8core/16thread E5-2670 should be good enough
:)

Hey Daniel, do you have test.py running on real MIPS hardware?  Thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20171205/65228006/attachment.sig>