public inbox for binutils@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
To: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezentsev@oracle.com>,
	binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gprofng: test suite problems
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 08:26:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d06641ae-efe5-54a8-2c1a-246e158db152@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4bf8c627-9268-ca2a-290f-0b7066c3179d@oracle.com>

On 5/25/22 18:19, Vladimir Mezentsev wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/25/22 02:08, Luis Machado wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just wondering, how long is the gprofng testsuite run suppose to take?
> 
>   There are ~15 gprofng tests. Each test runs ~ 1 minute (does not depend on the machine).
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> It seems to take a long time to execute (aarch64-linux Ubuntu 22.04), to the
>> point where it makes validation of other components a bit annoying. I clocked it at 7m 53s, on a reasonably
>> powerful machine.
>>
>> Ideally one would "make check" everything, but with this particular suite taking
>> so long, it is tempting to skip it.
>>
>> Does it parallelize based on -j input?
> 
> If you run only gprofng tests :  `(cd BLD_DIR/gprofng; make check -j ... ) `,  it doesn't parallelize.
> If you run all binutils tests: `(cd BLD_DIR/; make check -j ... ) `, each testsuite runs in parallel.

I see.

Trying a "make check-gprofng -j$(nproc)" with 64 cores still gives me the same 7 minutes or so for the testsuite run.

A single-process "make check-gprofng" gives me around 8 minutes. It doesn't look that much different.


>>
>> On 4/27/22 10:36, Vladimir Mezentsev via Binutils wrote:
>>> From: Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezentsev@oracle.com>
>>>
>>> gprofng/ChangeLog
>>> 2022-04-27  Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezentsev@oracle.com>
>>>
>>>     PR gprofng/29065
>>>     * testsuite/lib/Makefile.skel: set LD_LIBRARY_PATH
>>> ---
>>>   gprofng/testsuite/lib/Makefile.skel | 4 ++--
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gprofng/testsuite/lib/Makefile.skel b/gprofng/testsuite/lib/Makefile.skel
>>> index 7134c2715b5..7810ba7ed7a 100644
>>> --- a/gprofng/testsuite/lib/Makefile.skel
>>> +++ b/gprofng/testsuite/lib/Makefile.skel
>>> @@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ DISPLAY        = $(GPROFNG) display text
>>>   EXPERIMENT  = test.er
>>>   DISPLAY_LOG = display.log
>>>   -
>>> -export LD_LIBRARY_PATH := $(shell dirname $$(find ../root -name libgprofng.so.0 | head -1))
>>> +gprofng_dir := $(shell dirname $$(find ../root -name libgprofng.so.0 | head -1))
>>> +export LD_LIBRARY_PATH := $(gprofng_dir):$(gprofng_dir)/..
>>>     .PHONY: all collect compare clobber clean
>>
> 


      reply	other threads:[~2022-05-26  7:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-27  9:36 vladimir.mezentsev
2022-04-28  0:07 ` Nick Alcock
2022-04-28  3:22   ` Vladimir Mezentsev
2022-05-25  9:08 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-25 17:19   ` Vladimir Mezentsev
2022-05-26  7:26     ` Luis Machado [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=d06641ae-efe5-54a8-2c1a-246e158db152@arm.com \
    --to=luis.machado@arm.com \
    --cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
    --cc=vladimir.mezentsev@oracle.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).