Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] RISC-V: ACPI: Namespace updates

[Igor Mammedov]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 03:46:36 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 03:50:10PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:51:04 +0100
> > Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 02:43:19PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> > > > On Mon,  8 Jul 2024 17:17:32 +0530
> > > > Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> > > >     
> > > > > This series adds few updates to RISC-V ACPI namespace for virt 
> > > > > platform.
> > > > > Additionally, it has patches to enable ACPI table testing for RISC-V.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1) PCI Link devices need to be created outside the scope of the PCI 
> > > > > root
> > > > > complex to ensure correct probe ordering by the OS. This matches the
> > > > > example given in ACPI spec as well.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2) Add PLIC and APLIC as platform devices as well to ensure probing
> > > > > order as per BRS spec [1] requirement.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 3) BRS spec requires RISC-V to use new ACPI ID for the generic UART. 
> > > > > So,
> > > > > update the HID of the UART.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 4) Enabled ACPI tables tests for RISC-V which were originally part of
> > > > > [2] but couldn't get merged due to updates required in the expected 
> > > > > AML
> > > > > files. I think combining those patches with this series makes it 
> > > > > easier
> > > > > to merge since expected AML files are updated.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] - https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-brs
> > > > > [2] - 
> > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2024-06/msg04734.html   
> > > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > btw: CI is not happy about series, see:
> > > >  https://gitlab.com/imammedo/qemu/-/pipelines/1371119552
> > > > also 'cross-i686-tci' job routinely timeouts on bios-tables-test
> > > > but we still keep adding more tests to it.
> > > > We should either bump timeout to account for slowness or
> > > > disable bios-tables-test for that job.    
> > > 
> > > Asumming the test is functionally correct, and not hanging, then bumping
> > > the timeout is the right answer. You can do this in the meson.build
> > > file  
> > 
> > I think test is fine, since once in a while it passes (I guess it depends 
> > on runner host/load)
> > 
> > Overal job timeout is 1h, but that's not what fails.
> > What I see is, the test aborts after 10min timeout.
> > it's likely we hit boot_sector_test()/acpi_find_rsdp_address_uefi() timeout.
> > That's what we should try to bump.
> > 
> > PS:
> > I've just started the job with 5min bump, lets see if it is enough.  
> 
> Because we should wait for 5min CPU time, not wall time.
> Why don't we do that?
> Something like getrusage should work I think.
> 

It turned out to be a meson timeout that's set individually per test file.
I'll send a patch later on.

> 
> > > We should never disable tests only in CI, because non-CI users
> > > are just as likely to hit timeouts.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > With regards,
> > > Daniel  
>