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

[Michal Simek]

On 6.12.2017 13:17, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:53:08AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 5.12.2017 16:13, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:10:47PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>> On 4.12.2017 18:14, 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.
>>>>
>>>> We had this issue with silicon v1 and having accurate sleep measuring is
>>>> definitely good thing to have (Probably make sense to enable margin
>>>> setup via variable anyway).
>>>>
>>>> But still I would extend this to more wider discussion how to disable
>>>> just one particular test case which is verified that it is broken on
>>>> certain target/target configuration.
>>>> Using -k not XXX option is possible but as I said before it is not ideal
>>>> to keep track of these problematic tests in two locations and share this
>>>> between two teams.
>>>>
>>>> Better would be to add to u_boot_boardenv...py file line like this
>>>> skip_test_sleep = True
>>>>
>>>> Which would be parsed and test won't run for specific board/configuration.
>>>> The same logic can be generic that user can add for example
>>>> skip_test_net_dhcp = True
>>>> to skip dhcp test for whatever reason.
>>>>
>>>> Then for travis-ci we can just put these lines to py/travis-ci/.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Ah, good idea!  We have a few cases like this already, so how about
>>> env__sleep_accurate, default it to True and let the board files set it
>>> to false, and have test_sleep check for and use that?
>>
>> ok. this is about that variable for sleep not about generic skipping
>> testcases which are failing.
> 
> Right.  I'm not sure we need to get too complicated on "skip these
> tests" logic.  But I think we have enough technical information now to
> say it's reasonable to skip sleep in some cases.
> 

Ok. Patch send please review.

Thanks,
Michal