On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 03:57:23PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > I probably misunderstood how -n nr_ops vs --duration=30 interact; > I expected it to run until either were exhausted, not for duration > to override nr_ops as implied by this: There are (at least) two ways that a soak duration is being used today; one is where someone wants to run a very long soak for hours and where if you go long by an hour or two it's no big deals. The other is where you are specifying a soak duration as part of a smoke test (using the smoketest group), where you might be hoping to keep the overall run time to 15-20 minutes and so you set SOAK_DURATION to 3m. (This was based on some research that Darrick did which showed that running the original 5 tests in the smoketest group gave you most of the code coverage of running all of the quick group, which had ballooned from 15 minutes many years ago to an hour or more. I just noticed that we've since added two more tests to the smoketest group; it might be worth checking whether those two new tests addded to thhe smoketest groups significantly improves code coverage or not. It would be unfortunate if the runtime bloat that happened to the quick group also happens to the smoketest group...) The bottom line is in addition to trying to design semantics for users who might be at either end of the CPU count spectrum, we should also consider that SOAK_DURATION could be set for values ranging from minutes to hours. Thanks, - Ted
