On 2024-01-16 11:29 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:21:51 -0500 Benjamin Poirier wrote: > > real 13m35.065s > > user 0m1.657s > > sys 0m27.918s > > > > The test is not cpu bound; as Jay pointed out, it spends most of its > > time sleeping. > > Ugh, so it does multiple iterations of 118 sec? There are other test functions in the script which include a lot of sleeping. > Could you send a patch to bump the timeout to 900 or 1200 in this case? Sure but I'd like to give a chance for Hangbin to reply first. Would the test be just as good if it was shortened by removing some cases or reducing the time intervals? Or is increasing the timeout the best approach?
