[Intel-gfx] [RFC i-g-t 0/4] Redundant test pruning
Tvrtko Ursulin
tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com
Wed Jul 5 13:30:43 UTC 2017
On 27/06/2017 09:02, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On 26/06/2017 17:09, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:31:39PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>>
>>> Small series which saves test execution time by removing the
>>> redundant tests.
>>>
>>> Tvrtko Ursulin (4):
>>> igt: Remove default from the engine list
>>> gem_exec_basic: Exercise the default engine selection
>>> gem_sync: Add all and store_all subtests
>>> extended.testlist: Remove some test-subtest combinations
>>
>> Ack on patches 1&2, but I'm not sold on patch 3. Atm gem_* takes a
>> ridiculous amount of machine time to run, you're adding more stuff. Are
>> those tests really drastially better at catching races if we run them 10x
>> longer? Is there no better way to exercise the races (lots more machines,
>> maybe slower ones, which is atm impossible since it just takes way, way
>> too long and we need an entire farm just for one machine).
>
> New gem_sync subtests were suggested by Chris after I send the first
> version of the series with the goal of getting the same coverage in
> faster time.
>
> If you look at patch 4, it removes 18 * 150s of gem_sync subtests, and
> adds 4 * 150s. So in total we are 35 minutes better of in the best case,
> a bit less on smaller machines.
>
> This is just for gem_sync, I forgot what did the saving for the series
> add up to. 1-2 hours maybe?
>
>> Also not sure how much curating extended.testlist is worth it, just make
>> the testcases faster :-) Like, roughly 100x faster overall for gem_*
>> ... >
>> But meanwhile ack on that one too.
>
> In which one, 3, or 4, or both?
Ping on the series - do we want to try easy runtime reduction via this
way or should I drop it?
Regards,
Tvrtko
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list