Hi Zhengchao Shao,
On 14/07/2023 04:25, shaozhengchao wrote:
>
>
> On 2023/7/14 5:16, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> When looking for something else in LKFT reports [1], I noticed that the
>> TC selftest ended with a timeout error:
>>
>> not ok 1 selftests: tc-testing: tdc.sh # TIMEOUT 45 seconds
>>
>> The timeout had been introduced 3 years ago, see the Fixes commit below.
>>
>> This timeout is only in place when executing the selftests via the
>> kselftests runner scripts. I guess this is not what most TC devs are
>> using and nobody noticed the issue before.
>>
>> The new timeout is set to 15 minutes as suggested by Pedro [2]. It looks
>> like it is plenty more time than what it takes in "normal" conditions.
>>
>> Fixes: 852c8cbf34d3 ("selftests/kselftest/runner.sh: Add 45 second
>> timeout per test")
>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Link:
>> https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-master/build/next-20230711/testrun/18267241/suite/kselftest-tc-testing/test/tc-testing_tdc_sh/log [1]
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/0e061d4a-9a23-9f58-3b35-d8919de332d7@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/ [2]
>> Suggested-by: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/tc-testing/settings | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/tc-testing/settings
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/tc-testing/settings
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..e2206265f67c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/tc-testing/settings
>> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
>> +timeout=900
>>
> I remember last year when I tested all the tdc cases（qdisc + filter +
> action + infra） in my vm machine, it took me nearly 20 minutes.
> So I think it should be more than 1200 seconds if all cases need to be
> tested.
Thank you for your feedback!
Be careful that here, it is the timeout to run "tdc.sh" only which is
currently limited to:
./tdc.py -c actions --nobuildebpf
./tdc.py -c qdisc
(not "filter", nor "infra" then)
I guess for this, 15 minutes is more than enough, no?
At least on my side, I ran it in a i386 VM without KVM and it took less
than 3 minutes [1].
Cheers,
Matt
[1]
https://tuxapi.tuxsuite.com/v1/groups/community/projects/matthieu.baerts/tests/2SWHb7PJfqkUX1m8rLu3GXbsHE0/logs?format=html
--
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
