On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:02:02AM +0100, 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@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > 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. So why keep the other 18 tests when we have coverage by the new ones? Some developer modes (like e.g. kms_frontbuffer_tracking has) for testing is all nice, but piling ever higher amounts of redundant tests up isn't great imo. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
