netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests/net: force synchronized GC for a test.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240304074421.41726c4d@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 07:44:21 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@...il.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@...il.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
 kernel-team@...a.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuifeng@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests/net: force synchronized GC for a
 test.

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 16:45:58 -0800 Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
> However, some extra waiting may be added to it.
> There are two possible extra waiting. The first one is calling
> round_jiffies() in fib6_run_gc(), that may add 750ms at most. The second
> one is the granularity of waiting for 5 seconds (in our case) is 512ms
> for HZ 1000 according to the comment at the very begin of timer.c.
> In fact, it can add 392ms for 5750ms (5000ms + 750ms). Overall, they may
> contribute up to 1144ms.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Debug build is slower. So, the test scripts will be slower than normal
> build. That means the script is actually waiting longer with a debug build.

Meaning bumping the wait to $((($EXPIRE + 1) * 2))
should be enough for the non-debug runner?