The fio jobs are supposed to run long in background during the test.
Instead relying on a job size use explicit runtime for this.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>
---
tests/nvme/032 | 4 ++--
tests/nvme/040 | 9 +++++++--
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/nvme/032 b/tests/nvme/032
index 017d4a339971..93f53ac22a0b 100755
--- a/tests/nvme/032
+++ b/tests/nvme/032
@@ -38,8 +38,8 @@ test_device() {
sysfs="/sys/bus/pci/devices/${pdev}"
# start fio job
- _run_fio_rand_io --filename="$TEST_DEV" --size=1g \
- --group_reporting &> /dev/null &
+ _run_fio_rand_io --filename="$TEST_DEV" \
+ --group_reporting --time_based --runtime=1d &> /dev/null &
sleep 5
diff --git a/tests/nvme/040 b/tests/nvme/040
index 04bd726cd309..10f924082f34 100755
--- a/tests/nvme/040
+++ b/tests/nvme/040
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ test() {
local port
local loop_dev
local nvmedev
+ local fio_pid
echo "Running ${TEST_NAME}"
@@ -37,8 +38,10 @@ test() {
# start fio job
echo "starting background fio"
- _run_fio_rand_io --filename="/dev/${nvmedev}n1" --size=1g \
- --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 &> /dev/null &
+ _run_fio_rand_io --filename="/dev/${nvmedev}n1" \
+ --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 \
+ --time_based --runtime=1d &> /dev/null &
+ fio_pid=$!
sleep 5
# do reset/remove operation
@@ -48,6 +51,8 @@ test() {
echo "deleting controller"
_nvme_delete_ctrl "${nvmedev}"
+ { kill "${fio_pid}"; wait; } &> /dev/null
+
_remove_nvmet_subsystem_from_port "${port}" "${subsys}"
_remove_nvmet_subsystem "${subsys}"
_remove_nvmet_port "${port}"
--
2.40.0
On 5/11/23 07:09, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> The fio jobs are supposed to run long in background during the test.
> Instead relying on a job size use explicit runtime for this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>
Is there any issue with the exiting approach for this change ?
-ck
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 04:40:52AM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> On 5/11/23 07:09, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > The fio jobs are supposed to run long in background during the test.
> > Instead relying on a job size use explicit runtime for this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>
>
> Is there any issue with the exiting approach for this change ?
The expectation of the test here is that there is a background job running.
Depending on the job size is an indirect way to express run at least for x
seconds. This gives a variable runtime as it depends the how fast fio jobs gets
executed. Explicitly telling the runtime is my opinion more robust and documents
the indention better.
On 5/18/23 00:52, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 04:40:52AM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
>> On 5/11/23 07:09, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>>> The fio jobs are supposed to run long in background during the test.
>>> Instead relying on a job size use explicit runtime for this.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>
>> Is there any issue with the exiting approach for this change ?
> The expectation of the test here is that there is a background job running.
> Depending on the job size is an indirect way to express run at least for x
> seconds. This gives a variable runtime as it depends the how fast fio jobs gets
> executed. Explicitly telling the runtime is my opinion more robust and documents
> the indention better.
agree, it is better to kill on rely on the variable while test is
running ...
Reviewed-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <[email protected]>
-ck