[Intel-gfx] The whole round of i-g-t testing cost too long running time

[Yang, Guang A]

Ok there are a few cases where we can indeed make tests faster, but it will be work for us. And that won't really speed up much since we're adding piles more testcases at a pretty quick rate. And many of these new testcases are CRC based, so inheritely take some time to run.
[He, Shuang] OK, so it takes at least n/60 in usual case to have result detected plus additional execution time, depending on how many rounds of testing. We will be absolutely happy to see more tests coming that is useful
[Guang YANG] Except these CRC case, some stress case may also cost a bit of time, especially<app:ds:especially> on some old platforms. Maybe can reduce the loop in that kind of stress case?

So I think longer-term we simply need to throw more machines at the problem and run testcases in parallel on identical machines.
[He, Shuang] This would be the perfect way to go if all tests are really feasible to take long time to run. If we get more identical test machines, then problem solved
[Guang YANG] shuang's PRTS can cover some work for i-g-t testing and catch some regressions. Most of the i-g-t bugs are from HSW+, so I hope keep focus on these new platforms.  but now we don't have enough free machine resource (such as BYT,BDW)to support one machine only run i-g-t in nightly.


Wrt analyzing issues I think the right approach for moving forward is:
a) switch to piglit to run tests, not just enumerate them. This will allow QA and developers to share testcase analysis.
[He, Shuang] Yes, though this could not actually accelerate the test. We could directly wrap over piglit to run testing (have other control process to monitor and collecting test results)
[Guang YANG] Yeah, Shuang said is what we did. Piglit have been improved more powerful, but our infrastructure have better remote control and result collecting. If it will be comfortable for Developers to see the case result from running piglit, we can discuss how to match these two framework together.

b) add automated analysis for time-consuming and error prone cases like dmesg warnings and backtraces. Thomas&I have just discussed a few ideas in this are in our 1:1 today.

Reducing the set of igt tests we run is imo pointless: The goal of igt is to hit corner-cases, arbitrarily selecting which kinds of corner-cases we test just means that we have a nice illusion about our test coverage.
[He, Shuang] I don't think select a subset of test cases to run is pointless. It's a trade-off between speed and correctness. For our nightly testing it's not so useful to run only a small set of testing. But for fast sanity testing, it should be easier, which is supposed to catch regression in major/critical functionality (So other developers and QA could continue their work).


Adding more people to the discussion.

Cheers, Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20140416/302c6b62/attachment.html>